Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Calculating expected mortality.

N Keiding, M Vaeth

    Statistics in Medicine
    |July 1, 1986
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    Reduced mesiodistal tooth dimension in individuals with osteogenesis imperfecta: a cross-sectional study.

    Acta odontologica Scandinavica·2020
    Same author

    Preferred Reporting items for OBservational studies in Endodontics (PROBE) guidelines: a development protocol.

    International endodontic journal·2020
    Same author

    PRIRATE 2020 guidelines for reporting randomized trials in Endodontics: a consensus-based development.

    International endodontic journal·2020
    Same author

    Diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography used for assessment of apical periodontitis: an ex vivo histopathological study on human cadavers.

    International endodontic journal·2018
    Same author

    Impact of cone beam computed tomography on periapical assessment and treatment planning five to eleven years after surgical endodontic retreatment.

    International endodontic journal·2018
    Same author

    Prediction of periapical status and tooth extraction.

    International endodontic journal·2015
    Same journal

    Interpretable Bayesian Modeling for Multireader Multicase Studies: Addressing Overdispersion and Limited Sample Size in Diagnostic Enhancement Evaluation.

    Statistics in medicine·2026
    Same journal

    Adaptive Sequential Multiple Hypotheses Testing for Concomitant Vaccine Safety Surveillance.

    Statistics in medicine·2026
    Same journal

    Novel Distance Regression for Repeated Outcomes With Missing Data: Applications to Longitudinal and Crossover Studies of Microbiome Beta-Diversity.

    Statistics in medicine·2026
    Same journal

    Optimal Weighted Tests for Replication Studies and the 'Two-Trials Rule' With Multiple Hypotheses.

    Statistics in medicine·2026
    Same journal

    Identifiable Copula-Double-Cox Models: A Fully Parametric Framework for Dependent Right-Censored Survival Data.

    Statistics in medicine·2026
    Same journal

    Moving From Individualized Risk-Based Prevention to Benefit-Based Prevention: Estimating Individualized Life-Years Gained From Prevention Services as a Basis for Eligibility.

    Statistics in medicine·2026
    See all related articles

    The widely used person-years method for calculating expected mortality can exaggerate differences between study and standard mortality rates. This bias is inherent when study mortality deviates from the reference population, making the method unreliable in many cases.

    Area of Science:

    • Epidemiology
    • Biostatistics
    • Public Health Research

    Background:

    • The person-years method is a common approach for calculating expected mortality in epidemiological studies.
    • Accurate calculation of expected mortality is crucial for assessing disease risk and intervention effectiveness.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To examine the bias in the person-years method when study mortality differs from standard mortality.
    • To evaluate the feasibility of alternative methods for calculating expected mortality.

    Main Methods:

    • Analysis of bias in the person-years method using a proportional hazards model.
    • Discussion of the practical limitations of alternative methods, such as calculating mortality during 'potential follow-up time'.

    Main Results:

    Keywords:
    BiasCritiqueDemographic FactorsError SourcesMeasurementMethodological StudiesModels, TheoreticalMortalityPopulationPopulation DynamicsResearch MethodologyWorld

    Related Experiment Videos

    • The person-years method generally leads to bias, exaggerating the difference between study and standard mortality.
    • This exaggeration occurs when study mortality is either lower or higher than the reference population's mortality.
    • Calculating mortality during 'potential follow-up time' is often not practically feasible.

    Conclusions:

    • The person-years method is not a reliable estimator of expected mortality when study mortality deviates from standard rates.
    • Researchers should be aware of the inherent bias in this method and consider its implications for study findings.
    • Alternative calculation methods may be necessary but face practical challenges.