<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Hazard ratio vs incidence rate in SAS Procedures</title>
    <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/SAS-Procedures/Hazard-ratio-vs-incidence-rate/m-p/271654#M58309</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Usually when I perform&amp;nbsp; Cox-regressions (PHREG - two treatment groups) the estimated hazard ratio is often quite similar to the ratio of incidence rates in each treatment groups.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I now run a PHREG (2 treatment groups)&amp;nbsp; which resulteted in a HR of 1.5. When I compared it with the&amp;nbsp; ratio of incidence rate, this ratio resultated in 2.0.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I have validated all number oand calculations and I now wonder why they can differ so much? Non-constant hazards?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thanks in advance&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thomas&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 May 2016 09:15:46 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>bollibompa</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2016-05-19T09:15:46Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Hazard ratio vs incidence rate</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/SAS-Procedures/Hazard-ratio-vs-incidence-rate/m-p/271654#M58309</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Usually when I perform&amp;nbsp; Cox-regressions (PHREG - two treatment groups) the estimated hazard ratio is often quite similar to the ratio of incidence rates in each treatment groups.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I now run a PHREG (2 treatment groups)&amp;nbsp; which resulteted in a HR of 1.5. When I compared it with the&amp;nbsp; ratio of incidence rate, this ratio resultated in 2.0.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I have validated all number oand calculations and I now wonder why they can differ so much? Non-constant hazards?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thanks in advance&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thomas&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 May 2016 09:15:46 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/SAS-Procedures/Hazard-ratio-vs-incidence-rate/m-p/271654#M58309</guid>
      <dc:creator>bollibompa</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-05-19T09:15:46Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Hazard ratio vs incidence rate</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/SAS-Procedures/Hazard-ratio-vs-incidence-rate/m-p/271789#M58313</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Non-constant for 2 groups implies non-proportionality, in which case, PHREG might not be the best way to analyze your results. &amp;nbsp;A key assumption of Cox regression is proportionality of the hazard rates. &amp;nbsp;Another comparison to check this out is to compare the HR from PHREG to the Kaplan-Meier (nonparametric) estimate you can obtain from LIFETEST.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Steve Denham&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 May 2016 17:37:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/SAS-Procedures/Hazard-ratio-vs-incidence-rate/m-p/271789#M58313</guid>
      <dc:creator>SteveDenham</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-05-19T17:37:24Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

