Search

Variable selection in regression models is a particularly important issue in epidemiology, where one usually encounters observational studies. In contrast to randomized trials or experiments, confounding is often not controlled by the study design, but has to be accounted for by suitable statistical methods. For instance, when risk factors should be identified with unconfounded effect estimates, multivariable regression techniques can help to adjust for confounders. We investigated the current practice of variable selection in 4 major epidemiologic journals in 2019 and found that the majority of articles used subject-matter knowledge to determine a priori the set of included variables. In comparison with previous reviews from 2008 and 2015, fewer articles applied data-driven variable selection. Furthermore, for most articles the main aim of analysis was hypothesis-driven effect estimation in rather low-dimensional data situations (i.e. large sample size compared with the number of variables). Based on our results, we discuss the role of data-driven variable selection in epidemiology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Observational pharmacoepidemiological studies using routinely collected healthcare data are increasingly being used in the field of nephrology to answer questions on the effectiveness and safety of medications. This review discusses a number of biases that may arise in such studies and proposes solutions to minimize them during the design or statistical analysis phase. We first describe designs to handle confounding by indication (e.g. active comparator design) and methods to investigate the influence of unmeasured confounding, such as the E-value, the use of negative control outcomes and control cohorts. We next discuss prevalent user and immortal time biases in pharmacoepidemiology research and how these can be prevented by focussing on incident users and applying either landmarking, using a time-varying exposure, or the cloning, censoring and weighting method. Lastly, we briefly discuss the common issues with missing data and misclassification bias. When these biases are properly accounted for, pharmacoepidemiological observational studies can provide valuable information for clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Researchers conducting observational studies need to consider 3 types of biases: selection bias, information bias, and confounding bias. A whole arsenal of statistical tools can be used to deal with information and confounding biases. However, methods for addressing selection bias and unmeasured confounding are less developed. In this paper, we propose general bounding formulas for bias, including selection bias and unmeasured confounding. This should help researchers make more prudent interpretations of their (potentially biased) results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this issue of the Journal, Sullivan etal. (Am J Epidemiol. 2016;184(5):345-353) carefully examine the theoretical justification for use of the test-negative design, a common observational study design, in assessing the effectiveness of influenza vaccination. Using modern causal inference methods (in particular, directed acyclic graphs), they describe different threats to the validity of inferences drawn about the effect of vaccination from test-negative design studies. These threats include confounding, selection bias, and measurement error in either the exposure or the outcome. While confounding and measurement error are common in observational studies, the potential for selection bias inherent in the test-negative design brings into question the validity of inferences drawn from such studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]