You are here

  • Home
  • Online First
  • Reply: Immortal time bias in a retrospective study examining colorectal cancer mortality according to adherence to colonoscopy

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Letter
Reply: Immortal time bias in a retrospective study examining colorectal cancer mortality according to adherence to colonoscopy
  1. Manuel Zorzi1,
  2. Jessica Battagello2,
  3. Claudio Barbiellini Amidei1
  1. 1Veneto Tumour Registry, Azienda Zero, Padova, Italy
  2. 2Azienda ULSS n 2 Marca Trevigiana, Treviso, Italy
  1. Correspondence to Dr Manuel Zorzi, Veneto Tumour Registry, Azienda Zero, 35131 Padova, Italy; manuel.zorzi{at}azero.veneto.it

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2022-328905

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    We appreciate Dr Winters and Dr Ford’s letter1 for the opportunity to clarify the role of immortal time bias that in the authors’ opinion may have affected the results of our previous article.2

    Several sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine whether changing the time window at risk after positive faecal immunochemical test (FIT) affected estimated risks, but no significant differences were observed. There are two main reasons for this.

    The first is intrinsically related to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening that in most cases detects initial lesions.3 4 Given progression to CRC is slow, dying within the first months of a FIT positive test from a most probably asymptomatic CRC is highly unlikely. In fact, out of 505 overall CRC deaths, only 3 (0.6%) occurred in the first month, 9 (1.8%) up to the …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors All authors equally contributed to data analysis and intepretation, and to the drafting of the manuscript. The final version was approved by all the authors.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.