The 2016 Nordic and Baltic Stata Users Group meeting was September 13, but you can still interact with the user community even after the meeting and learn more about the presentations shared.
Proceedings
9:05–9:20 |
Abstract:
Work-history data can be linked to job-exposure matrices (JEMs),
containing job-specific exposure ratings across different time
periods, for retrospective assessment of job-specific exposure.
However, work-history data often present major challenges, including
mapping job titles into standardized occupational codes, quality
and consistency checks, and complexity arising from overlapping
employment spells. We demonstrate how Stata can be used to resolve
some of these challenges, specifically, complex spell structure
arising because of overlapping employment periods and gaps.
Additional information
Norway16_Babigumira.pdf Ronnie Babigumira
Cancer Registry of Norway
Jo S. Stenehjem
Cancer Registry of Norway
Tom K. Grimsrud
Cancer Registry of Norway
|
9:20–9:35 |
Abstract:
There are about as many ways to compile datasets for analyses as
there are statisticians or epidemiologists. Some like to have wide
datasets with one observation per subject and tons of variables,
while others like the long format with many observations per subject.
I will present the Raw/Tabulation Datasets/Analyses Datasets
(Raw/TD/AD) method inspired by the standards for clinical
datasets set by the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium
(CDISC). The CDISC standards are widely adopted by the pharmaceutical
industry but less so within academia probably because of the rigidity of
the standards. While the standards, specifically the Study Data
Tabulation Model (SDTM) and the Analysis Data Model (AdAM), are
probably to extensive for academic researchers, elements
of the standards could inspire for a more rigorous setup of clinical
databases.
I will present the basic structure of first compiling raw study data
into standard datasets such as study visits, demographics, vital signs,
etc., and then compiling analyses datasets introducing derived variables,
imputations, and other formatting to form datasets ready for analyses. I
will provide examples from a recently finished randomized controlled trial.
Additional information
Norway16_Olsen1.pptx Inge Christoffer Olsen
Diakonhjemmet Hospital
|
9:35–9:50 |
Abstract:
When one moves from SAS to Stata, a major drawback is the ability
to produce customized tables in MS Word, which is available in
SAS using the Output Delivery System (ODS) destination for RTF.
Most medical articles are prepared for submission in Word, and it is
preferable to produce ready-to-use tables without the need for
error-prone cutting and pasting from the Results window. I
will show how this can be done in Stata with user-written
packages such as parmest, xcontract, and xcollapse
for making datasets of results (often denoted resultssets)
and then with listtab and the rtfutil package for
producing the RTF tables. The rtfutil package
can also be used to include graphics in the RTF file, enabling the
production of study reports and tables, listings and figures (TLFs).
I will provide examples from a recent randomized controlled trial.
Additional information
Norway16_Olsen2.pptx Inge Christoffer Olsen
Diakonhjemmet Hospital
|
9:50–10:35 |
Abstract:
At the 2009 meeting in Bonn, I presented a new Stata command
called texdoc. The command allowed weaving Stata code
into a LaTeX document, but its functionality and its usefulness
for larger projects were limited. In the meantime, I heavily revised
the texdoc command to simplify the workflow and improve
support for complex documents. The command is now well suited,
for example, to generate automatic documentation of data analyses
or even to write an entire book. In this talk, I will present the
new features of texdoc and provide examples of their
application. Furthermore, I will present a newly released companion
command called webdoc that can be used to produce HTML or
Markdown documents.
Ben Jann
University of Bern
|
11:00–12:00 |
Abstract:
This talk reviews treatment-effect estimation with observational data
and discusses Stata examples that illustrate syntax and parameter
interpretation. After reviewing the potential-outcome framework, the
talk discusses estimators for the average treatment effect (ATE) that
require exogenous treatment assignment and some estimators that allow
for endogenous treatment assignment. The talk also discusses checks for
balance, checks for overlap, and some estimators for the ATE from
survival-time data. Finally, the talk discusses estimating and
interpreting quantile treatments effects.
Additional information
Norway16_Drukker.pdf David M. Drukker
StataCorp
|
1:00–1:30 |
Abstract:
Multistate models are increasingly being used to model
complex disease profiles. By modeling transitions between
disease states, accounting for competing events at each
transition, we can gain a much richer understanding of
patient trajectories and how risk factors impact over the
entire disease pathway. We will introduce some
new Stata commands for the analysis of multistate survival
data. This includes msset, a data preparation tool
that converts a dataset from wide (one observation per
subject, multiple time and status variables) to long
(one observation for each transition for which a subject
is at risk for). We develop a new estimation command,
stms, that allows the user to fit different
parametric distributions for different transitions,
simultaneously, while allowing sharing of covariate effects
across transitions. Finally, we present predictms, which calculates
transitions probabilities and many other useful measures of
absolute risk, following the fit of any model using streg,
stms, or stcox, using either a simulation approach
or the Aalen–Johansen estimator. We illustrate the software using
a dataset of patients with primary breast cancer.
Additional information
Norway16_Crowther.pdf Michael J. Crowther
University of Leicester & Karolinska Institutet
Paul C. Lambert
University of Leicester & Karolinska Institutet
|
1:30–2:30 |
Abstract:
Joint modeling of longitudinal and survival-time data has been
gaining more and more attention in recent years. Many studies
collect both longitudinal and survival-time data. Longitudinal,
panel, or repeated-measures data record data measured repeatedly
at different time points. Survival-time or event history data
record times to an event of interest such as death or onset of
a disease. The longitudinal and survival-time outcomes are often
related and should thus be analyzed jointly. Three types of joint
analysis may be considered: 1) evaluation of the effects of
time-dependent covariates on the survival time; 2) adjustment
for informative dropout in the analysis of longitudinal data;
and 3) joint assessment of the effects of baseline covariates on
the two types of outcomes. In this presentation, I will provide a
brief introduction to the methodology and demonstrate how to perform
these three types of joint analysis in Stata.
Additional information
Norway16_Marchenko.pdf Yulia Marchenko
StataCorp
|
2:30–3:00 | Coffee break |
3:00–3:30 |
Abstract:
Over the past decades, the discrete choice experiment (DCE)
has become a popular tool for investigating individual
preferences in several fields. This talk will describe the
dcreate command, which creates efficient designs for DCEs
using the modified Fedorov algorithm. The algorithm maximizes
the D-efficiency of the design based on the covariance matrix of
the conditional logit model.
Additional information
Norway16_Hole.pdf Arne Risa Hole
University of Sheffield
|
3:30–4:00 |
Abstract:
Prospective sample-size calculation is an important aspect of
study design, as is retrospective power calculation, particularly
when statistical significance is not achieved. For comparatively
simple hypothesis tests applied to simple experimental designs,
these quantities can be calculated using closed-form analytic
expressions. However, as designs and models become more complicated,
the derivation of power functions becomes difficult, and simulation is
often used when analytic approaches become intractable. This talk
will illustrate the use of Stata's simulation capabilities to
calculate statistical power for hypothesis tests based on arbitrarily
complex statistical models. Once a model is specified as an alternative
hypothesis, simulation is typically straightforward, and Stata's
ability to capture and accumulate model parameters enables straightforward
calculation of statistical power.
Additional information
Norway16_Jones.pptx Mike Jones
Macquarie University
|
4:00–4:30 |
Abstract:
This presentation will give a brief theoretical background
and history of case–cohort studies, which date back to the
key publication by Prentice in 1986. Examples of situations
when the case–cohort design is useful will be given, in
particular, in a register-based setting with total population
registers. The case–cohort design will be compared with the
nested case–control design, and advantages and disadvantages
will be presented. From a case–cohort design, it is possible
to estimate the same measures of effects (for example, hazards, hazard
ratios, hazard differences) that can be estimated in a standard
cohort study, provided that weights are included to account
for the oversampling of cases. Hence, in practice, the analysis
of a case–cohort study is similar to that of a cohort study (for example,
Cox regression, Poisson regression, and flexible parametric models),
with the addition of proper weights. Stata code for how to sample
a case–cohort study from a cohort study and how to incorporate
weights into the analysis will be presented. As an example, I
will present a study on the risk for breast cancer following pregnancy
using data from the Swedish Multi-Generation Register and the
Swedish Cancer Register. In this study, I utilized the case–cohort
design to reduce the analytical dataset and to improve computational
efficiency.
Additional information
Norway16_Johansson.pdf Anna Johansson
Karolinska Institutet
|
Training course on flexible parametric survival models
Immediately following the meeting on September 14, Paul Lambert gave a one-day course on flexible parametric survival models. Professor Lambert is coauthor of the Stata program stpm2 and the book Flexible Parametric Survival Analysis Using Stata: Beyond the Cox Model.
Organizers
Scientific committee
Tor Åge Myklebust
(Coordinator)
The Cancer Registry of Norway, Institute of Population-based Cancer Research
Arne Risa Hole
University of Sheffield
Hein Stigum
Norwegian Institute of Public Health
Morten Wang Fagerland
Oslo Centre for Biostatistics and Epidemiology (OCBE)
Peter Hedström
Institute of Analytical Sociology, Linköping University
Committee email: [email protected]
Meeting coordinator
Bjarte Aagnes
The Cancer Registry of Norway, Institute of
Population-based Cancer Research
Logistics organizer
The Stata User Group meeting is jointly organized by The Cancer Registry of Norway—Institute of Population-based Cancer Research and Metrika Consulting. Metrika Consulting is the distributor of Stata in the Nordic countries and Baltic states—Norway, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
View the proceedings of previous Stata Users Group meetings.