Analysis of observational studies in the presence of treatment selection bias: Effects of invasive cardiac management on AMI survival using propensity score and instrumental variable methods

JAMA

Volumn 297, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 278-285

  Stukel, Thérèse A ^a,b,c,d   Fisher, Elliott S ^b,e   Wennberg, David E ^f   Alter, David A ^a,c,d,g,h   Gottlieb, Daniel J ^b   Vermeulen, Marian J ^a  

^a INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL EVALUATIVE SCIENCES   (Canada)

^b DARTMOUTH MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^d SUNNYBROOK RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^e VA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^f MAINE MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^g ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^h UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACUTE HEART INFARCTION; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEART CATHETERIZATION; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL RECORD; MEDICARE; MORTALITY; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCORING SYSTEM;

EID: 33846436128     PISSN: 00987484     EISSN: 15383598     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jama.297.3.278     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Krumholz HM, Murillo JE, Chen J, et al. Thrombolytic therapy for eligible elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction. JAMA. 1997;277:1683-1688.
2. Ko DT, Mamdani M, Alter DA. Lipid-lowering therapy with statins in high-risk elderly patients: the treatment-risk paradox. JAMA. 2004;291:1864-1870.
3. Lee DS, Tu JV, Juurlink DN, et al. Risk-treatment mismatch in the pharmacotherapy of heart failure. JAMA. 2005;294:1240-1247.
4. Keeley EC, Boura JA, Grines CL. Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review of 23 randomised trials. Lancet. 2003;361:13-20.
5. Mehta SR, Cannon CP, Fox KA, et al. Routine vs selective invasive strategies in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials. JAMA. 2005;293:2908-2917.
6. Stukel TA, Lucas FL, Wennberg DE. Long-term outcomes of regional variations in intensity of invasive vs medical management of Medicare patients with acute myocardial infarction. JAMA. 2005;293:1329-1337.
7. Marciniak TA, Ellerbeck EF, Radford MJ, et al. Improving the quality of care for Medicare patients with acute myocardial infarction: results from the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project. JAMA. 1998;279:1351-1357.
8. Ryan TJ, Antman EM, Brooks NH, et al. 1999 Update: ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction). J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;34:890-911.
9. McClellan M, McNeil BJ, Newhouse JP. Does more intensive treatment of acute myocardial infarction in the elderly reduce mortality? analysis using instrumental variables. JAMA. 1994;272:859-866.
10. Wennberg DE; Dartmouth Atlas of Cardiovascular Health Care Working Group. The Dartmouth Atlas of Cardiovascular Health Care. Chicago, Ill: AHA Press; 1999.
11. Fisher ES, Wennberg DE, Stukel TA, et al. The implications of regional variations in Medicare spending, part 1: the content, quality, and accessibility of care. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:273-287.
12. Cox DR, Oakes D. Analysis of Survival Data. New York, NY: Chapman & Hall; 1984.
13. Lin DY. Cox regression analysis of multivariate failure time data: the marginal approach. Stat Med. 1994;13:2233-2247.
14. Cox DR, Snell EJ. A general definition of residuals. J Roy Statist Soc B. 1968;30:248-275.
15. Schoenfeld D. Partial residuals for the proportional hazards regression model. Biometrika. 1982;69:239-241.
16. STATA Statistical Software. Release 8.0. College Station, Tex: Stata Corp; 2004.
17. D'Agostino RB Jr. Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med. 1998;17:2265-2281.
18. Rosenbaum PR. Discussing hidden bias in observational studies. Ann Intern Med. 1991;115:901-905.
19. Braitman LE, Rosenbaum PR. Rare outcomes, common treatments: analytic strategies using propensity scores. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:693-695.
20. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J Am Stat Assoc. 1984;79:516-524.
21. Austin PC, Mamdani MM, Stukel TA, Anderson GM, Tu JV. The use of the propensity score for estimating treatment effects: administrative versus clinical data. Stat Med. 2005;24:1563-1578.
22. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Am Stat. 1985;39:33-38.
23. Parsons LS. Reducing bias in a propensity score matched-pair sample using greedy matching techniques. http://www2.sas.com/proceedings/sugi26/p214-26.pdf. Accessed October 18, 2006.
24. Harrell FE. Regression Modeling Strategies With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic Regression and Survival Analysis. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 2001.
25. Newhouse JP, McClellan M. Econometrics in outcomes research: the use of instrumental variables. Annu Rev Public Health. 1998;19:17-34.
26. Harris KM, Remler DK. Who is the marginal patient? understanding instrumental variables estimates of treatment effects. Health Serv Res. 1998;33:1337-1360.
27. Landrum MB, Ayanian JZ. Causal effect of ambulatory specialty care on mortality following myocardial infarction: a comparison of propensity score and instrumental variable analyses. Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol. 2001;2:221-245.
28. Wooldridge JM. Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western College Publishing; 2000.
29. Angrist JD, Imbens GW, Rubin DB. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. J Am Stat Assoc. 1996;91:444-455.
30. Staiger D, Stock JH. Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica. 1997;65:557-586.
31. US Food and Drug Administration. FDA public health advisory: deaths with antipsychotics in elderly patients with behavioral disturbances. http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/advisory/antipsychotics.htm. Accessed July 4, 2006.
32. Wang PS, Schneeweiss S, Avorn J, et al. Risk of death in elderly users of conventional vs atypical antipsychotic medications. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:2335-2341.
33. Mamdani M, Juurlink DN, Lee DS, et al. Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors versus non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and congestive heart failure outcomes in elderly patients: a population-based cohort study. Lancet. 2004;363:1751-1756.
34. Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1887-1892.
35. Benson K, Hartz AJ. A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1878-1886.
36. Normand ST, Landrum MB, Guadagnoli E, et al. Validating recommendations for coronary angiography following acute myocardial infarction in the elderly: a matched analysis using propensity scores. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54:387-398.
37. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70:41-55.
38. Shah BR, Laupacis A, Hux JE, Austin PC. Propensity score methods gave similar results to traditional regression modeling in observational studies: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:550-559.
39. Pilote L, Miller DP, Califf RM, et al. Determinants of the use of coronary angiography and revascularization after thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:1198-1205.
40. Selby JV, Fireman BH, Lundstrom RJ, et al. Variation among hospitals in coronary-angiography practices and outcomes after myocardial infarction in a large health maintenance organization. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:1888-1896.
41. Fisher ES, Wennberg DE, Stukel TA, et al. The implications of regional variations in Medicare spending, part 2: health outcomes and satisfaction with care. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:288-298.
42. Goodman DC, Fisher ES, Little GA, et al. The relation between the availability of neonatal intensive care and neonatal mortality. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:1538-1544.