Robustness intervals for competing risks analysis with causes of failure missing not at random
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 5, 2026

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model
Published on: September 16, 2022
Giorgos Bakoyannis1, Aristofanis Rontogiannis2, Ying Zhang3
1Department of Biostatistics and Health Data Science, Indiana University Indianapolis, Indianapolis,IN 46202, United States.
Abstract:
Analysis of competing risks data is often complicated by incomplete or selectively missing information on the cause of failure. Standard approaches typically assume that the cause of failure is missing at random (MAR), an assumption that is generally untestable and frequently implausible in observational studies. We propose a novel sensitivity analysis framework for the proportional cause-specific hazards model that accommodates missing-not-at-random (MNAR) scenarios. A sensitivity parameter is used to quantify the association between missingness and the unobserved cause of failure. Regression coefficients are estimated as functions of this parameter, and a simultaneous confidence band is constructed via a wild bootstrap procedure. This allows identification of a range of MNAR scenarios for which effects remain statistically significant; we refer to this range as a robustness interval. The validity of the proposed approach is justified both theoretically, via empirical process theory, and empirically, through simulation studies. We apply the method to the analysis of data from an HIV cohort study in sub-Saharan Africa, where a substantial proportion of causes of failure are missing and the MAR assumption is implausible. The analysis shows that key findings regarding risk factors for care interruption and mortality are robust across a broad spectrum of MNAR scenarios, underscoring the method's utility in situations with MNAR causes of failure.
Related Concept Videos
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Assumptions of Survival Analysis
Hazard Rate
Unusual Results
According to the range rule of thumb, any value above or below two standard deviations, 2σ from the mean, μ is considered unusual.
Maximum unusual value = μ + 2σ
Minimum unusual value...
Introduction to Test of Independence
The test statistic for a test of independence is similar to that of a goodness-of-fit test:
Uncertainty: Confidence Intervals
