Search

Propensity score analysis is a common approach to addressing confounding in nonrandomized studies. Its implementation, however, requires important assumptions (e.g. positivity). The disease risk score (DRS) is an alternative confounding score that can relax some of these assumptions. Like the propensity score, the DRS summarizes multiple confounders into a single score, on which conditioning by matching allows the estimation of causal effects. However, matching relies on arbitrary choices for pruning out data (e.g. matching ratio, algorithm, and caliper width) and may be computationally demanding. Alternatively, weighting methods, common in propensity score analysis, are easy to implement and may entail fewer choices, yet none have been developed for the DRS. Here we present 2 weighting approaches: One derives directly from inverse probability weighting; the other, named target distribution weighting , relates to importance sampling. We empirically show that inverse probability weighting and target distribution weighting display performance comparable to matching techniques in terms of bias but outperform them in terms of efficiency (mean squared error) and computational speed (up to >870 times faster in an illustrative study). We illustrate implementation of the methods in 2 case studies where we investigate placebo treatments for multiple sclerosis and administration of aspirin in stroke patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Background: The change in estimate is a popular approach for selecting confounders in epidemiology. It is recommended in epidemiologic textbooks and articles over significance test of coefficients, but concerns have been raised concerning its validity. Few simulation studies have been conducted to investigate its performance. Methods: An extensive simulation study was realized to compare different implementations of the change in estimate method. The implementations were also compared when estimating the association of body mass index with diastolic blood pressure in the PROspective Québec Study on Work and Health. Results: All methods were susceptible to introduce important bias and to produce confidence intervals that included the true effect much less often than expected in at least some scenarios. Overall mixed results were obtained regarding the accuracy of estimators, as measured by the mean squared error. No implementation adequately differentiated confounders from non-confounders. In the real data analysis, none of the implementation decreased the estimated standard error. Conclusion: Based on these results, it is questionable whether change in estimate methods are beneficial in general, considering their low ability to improve the precision of estimates without introducing bias and inability to yield valid confidence intervals or to identify true confounders. [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]

Matching methods are assumed to reduce the likelihood of a biased inference compared with ordinary least squares (OLS) regression. Using simulations, we compared inferences from propensity score matching, coarsened exact matching, and unmatched covariate-adjusted OLS regression to identify which methods, in which scenarios, produced unbiased inferences at the expected type I error rate of 5%. We simulated multiple data sets and systematically varied common support, discontinuities in the exposure and/or outcome, exposure prevalence, and analytical model misspecification. Matching inferences were often biased in comparison with OLS, particularly when common support was poor; when analysis models were correctly specified and common support was poor, the type I error rate was 1.6% for propensity score matching (statistically inefficient), 18.2% for coarsened exact matching (high), and 4.8% for OLS (expected). Our results suggest that when estimates from matching and OLS are similar (i.e. confidence intervals overlap), OLS inferences are unbiased more often than matching inferences; however, when estimates from matching and OLS are dissimilar (i.e. confidence intervals do not overlap), matching inferences are unbiased more often than OLS inferences. This empirical "rule of thumb" may help applied researchers identify situations in which OLS inferences may be unbiased as compared with matching inferences. [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]