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]