RagoonananDAllenBCannonCRottman-PietrzakKBelloA.Comparison of early versus late initiation of hydrocortisone in patients with septic shock in the ICU setting. Ann Pharmacother. 2022;56(3):264-270. doi:10.1177/10600280211021103.
2.
SuissaS.Immortal time bias in pharmacoepidemiology. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;167(4):492-499. doi:10.1093/aje/kwm324.
3.
HernánMASauerBCHernández-DíazSPlattRShrierI.Specifying a target trial prevents immortal time bias and other self-inflicted injuries in observational analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;79:70-75. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.04.014.
4.
MaringeCBenitez MajanoSExarchakouA, et al. Reflection on modern methods: trial emulation in the presence of immortal-time bias. Assessing the benefit of major surgery for elderly lung cancer patients using observational data. Int J Epidemiol. 2020;49(5):1719-1729. doi:10.1093/ije/dyaa057.
5.
HernánMA.How to estimate the effect of treatment duration on survival outcomes using observational data. BMJ. 2018;360:k182. doi:10.1136/bmj.k182.
6.
SatagopanJMBen-PoratLBerwickMRobsonMKutlerDAuerbachAD.A note on competing risks in survival data analysis. Br J Cancer. 2004;91(7):1229-1235. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6602102.
7.
AustinPCLeeDSFineJP.Introduction to the analysis of survival data in the presence of competing risks. Circulation. 2016;133(6):601-609. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.017719.
8.
AliMSGroenwoldRHHPestmanWR, et al. Propensity score balance measures in pharmacoepidemiology: a simulation study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2014;23(8):802-811. doi:10.1002/pds.3574.
9.
BelitserSVMartensEPPestmanWRGroenwoldRHHBoerAKlungelOH.Measuring balance and model selection in propensity score methods: balance measure for propensity scores methods. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011;20(11):1115-1129. doi:10.1002/pds.2188.
10.
RothJAJuchlerFWidmerAFBattegayM.Plea for standardized reporting and justification of propensity score methods. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;68(4):710-711. doi:10.1093/cid/ciy700.
