Confounding control in healthcare database research: Challenges and potential approaches

Medical Care

Volumn 48, Issue 6 SUPPL., 2010, Pages

  Brookhart, M Alan ^a,b   Stürmer, Til ^a,b   Glynn, Robert J ^a,b   Rassen, Jeremy ^a,b   Schneeweiss, Sebastian ^a,b  

^a BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b IL   (United States)

Author keywords

Confounding; Pharmacoepidemiology; Propensity scores; Unmeasured confounding; Variable selection

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE DEFECT; CONFOUNDING VARIABLE; CRITICALLY ILL PATIENT; DATA BASE; DISEASE SEVERITY; FUNCTIONAL STATUS; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; MEDICAL PRACTICE; PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY; PRESCRIPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROPHYLAXIS; RESEARCH; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; ARTICLE; COGNITION; EPIDEMIOLOGY; FACTUAL DATABASE; HEALTH SERVICE; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PATIENT SELECTION; STATISTICS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

PRESCRIPTION DRUG;

CAUSALITY; COGNITION; CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DATABASES, FACTUAL; HEALTH SERVICES; HUMANS; MEDICATION ADHERENCE; PATIENT SELECTION; PRESCRIPTION DRUGS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 77953632279     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181dbebe3     Document Type: Review

References (62)

1. Schneeweiss S, Avorn J. A review of uses of health care utilization databases for epidemiologic research on therapeutics. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:323-337.
2. Pearl J. Causal diagrams for empirical research. Biometrika. 1995;82: 669-688.
3. Greenland S, Pearl J, Robins JM. Causal diagrams for epidemiologic research. Epidemiology. 1999;10:37-48.
4. Walker AM. Confounding by indication. Epidemiology. 1996;7:335-336.
5. Bosco JL, Silliman RA, Thwin SS, et al. A most stubborn bias: no adjustment method fully resolves confounding by indication in observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:64-74.
6. Sturmer T, Schneeweiss S, Avorn J, et al. Adjusting effect estimates for unmeasured confounding with validation data using propensity score calibration. Am J Epidemiol. 2005;162:279-289.
7. Jackson LA, Jackson ML, Nelson JC, et al. Evidence of bias in estimates of influenza vaccine effectiveness in seniors. Int J Epidemiol. 2006;35:337-344.
8. Jackson LA, Nelson JC, Benson P, et al. Functional status is a confounder of the association of influenza vaccine and risk of all cause mortality in seniors. Int JEpidemiol. 2006;35:345-352.
9. Glynn RJ, Knight EL, Levin R, et al. Paradoxical relations of drug treatment with mortality in older persons. Epidemiology. 2001;12:682-689.
10. Glynn RJ, Schneeweiss S, Wang PS, et al. Selective prescribing led to overestimation of the benefits of lipid-lowering drugs. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:819-828.
11. Winkelmayer WC, Levin R, Setoguchi S. Associations of kidney function with cardiovascular medication use after myocardial infarction. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;3:1415-1422.
12. White HD. Adherence and outcomes: it's more than taking the pills. Lancet. 2005; 366:1989-1991.
13. Brookhart MA, Patrick AR, Dormuth C, et al. Adherence to lipid- lowering therapy and the use of preventive health services: an investigation of the healthy user effect. Am JEpidemiol. 2007;166:348-354.
14. Simpson SH, Eurich DT, Majumdar SR, et al. A meta-analysis of the association between adherence to drug therapy and mortality. BMJ. 2006;333:15.
15. Lewis JD, Brensinger C. Agreement between GPRD smoking data: a survey of general practitioners and a population-based survey. Phar- macoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2004;13:437-441.
16. Dormuth CR, Patrick AR, Shrank WH, et al. Statin adherence and risk of accidents. A cautionary tale. Circulation. 2009;119:2051-2057.
17. Fisher ES, Whaley FS, Krushat WM, et al. The accuracy of Medicare's hospital claims data: progress has been made, but problems remain. Am J Public Health. 1992;82:243-248.
18. Iezzoni LI, Foley SM, Daley J, et al. Comorbidities, complications, and coding bias. Does the number of diagnosis codes matter in predicting in-hospital mortality? JAMA. 1992;267:2197-2203.
19. Bradbury BD, Wang O, Critchlow CW, et al. Exploring relative mortality and epoetin alfa dose among hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis. 2008;51:62-70.
20. Bradbury BD, Brookhart MA, Winkelmayer WC, et al. Evolving statistical methods to facilitate evaluation of the causal association between erythropoiesis-stimulating agent dose and mortality in nonexperimental research: strengths and limitations. Am J Kidney Dis. 2009;54:554-560.
21. Greenland S, Robins JM. Identifiability, exchangeability, and epidemiological confounding. Int J Epidemiol. 1986;15:413-419.
22. Robins JM. Data, design, and background knowledge in etiologic inference. Epidemiology. 2001;12:313-320.
23. Hernan MA, Hernandez-Diaz S, Werler MM, et al. Causal knowledge as a prerequisite for confounding evaluation: an application to birth defects epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol. 2002;155:176-184.
24. Hernandez-Diaz S, Schisterman EF, Hernan MA. The birth weight "paradox" uncovered? Am J Epidemiol. 2006;164:1115-1120.
25. Robins JM, Greenland S. Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology. 1992;3:143-155.
26. Cole SR, Hernan MA. Fallibility in estimating direct effects. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31:163-165.
27. Schisterman EF, Cole SR, Platt RW. Overadjustment bias and unnecessary adjustment in epidemiologic studies. Epidemiology. 2009;20:488-495.
28. Ray WA. Evaluating medication effects outside of clinical trials: new-user designs. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;158:915-920.
29. Robins JM, Hernan MA, Brumback B. Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology. Epidemiology. 2000;11:550-560.
30. Cook NR, Cole SR, Hennekens CH. Use of a marginal structural model to determine the effect of aspirin on cardiovascular mortality in the Physicians' Health Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2002;155:1045-1053.
31. Bhattacharya J, Vogt WB. Do instrumental variables belong in propensity scores? In: NBER WorkingPaper Series; 2007. The National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
32. Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S, Rothman KJ, et al. Variable selection for propensity score models. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163:1149-1156.
33. Wen SW, Kramer MS. Uses of ecologic studies in the assessment of intended treatment effects. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52:7-12.
34. Johnston SC, Henneman T, McCulloch CE, et al. Modeling treatment effects on binary outcomes with grouped-treatment variables and individual covariates. Am J Epidemiol. 2002;156:753-760.
35. Solomon DH, Schneeweiss S, Glynn RJ, et al. Determinants ofselective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor prescribing: are patient or physician characteristics more important? Am J Med. 2003;115:715-720.
36. Brooks JM, Chrischilles EA, Scott SD, et al. Was breast conserving surgery underutilized for early stage breast cancer? Instrumental variables evidence for stage II patients from Iowa. Health Serv Res. 2003; 38:1385-1402. [erratum appears in Health Serv Res. 2004;39:693]
37. Brookhart MA, Wang PS, Solomon DH, et al. Evaluating short-term drug effects using a physician-specific prescribing preference as an instrumental variable. Epidemiology. 2006;17:268-275.
38. Stukel TA, Fisher ES, Wennberg DE, et al. 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. 2007;297:278-285.
39. Juurlink DN, Mamdani MM, Lee DS, et al. Rates of hyperkalemia after publication of the Randomized Aldactone Evaluation Study. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:543-551.
40. Johnston KM, Gustafson P, Levy AR, et al. Use of instrumental variables in the analysis of generalized linear models in the presence of unmeasured confounding with applications to epidemiological research. Stat Med. 2008;27:1539-1556.
41. Cain LE, Cole SR, Greenland S, et al. Effect of highly active antiretroviral therapy on incident AIDS using calendar period as an instrumental variable. Am J Epidemiol. 2009;169:1124-1132.
42. Mamdani M, Juurlink DN, Kopp A, et al. Gastrointestinal bleeding after the introduction of COX 2 inhibitors: ecological study. BMJ. 2004;328:1415-1416.
43. Greenland S. Quantifying biases in causal models: classical confounding vs collider-stratification bias. Epidemiology. 2003;14:300-306.
44. Cole SR, Platt RW, Schisterman EF, et al. Illustrating bias due to conditioning on a collider. Int J Epidemiol. 2010;39:417-420.
45. Greenland S. Invited commentary: variable selection versus shrinkage in the control of multiple confounders. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;167:523- 529, discussion 30-31.
46. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, et al. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373-383.
47. Romano PS, Roos LL, Jollis JG. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative data: differing perspectives. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46:1075-1079, discussion 81-90.
48. Seeger JD, Kurth T, Walker AM. Use of propensity score technique to account for exposure-related covariates: an example and lesson. Med Care. 2007;45:S143-S148.
49. Rosenbaum P, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70:41-55.
50. Rubin DB. Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:757-763.
51. Cepeda MS, Boston R, Farrar JT, et al. Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;158:280-287.
52. Johannes CB, Koro CE, Quinn SG, et al. The risk of coronary heart disease in type 2 diabetic patients exposed to thiazolidinediones compared to metformin and sulfonylurea therapy. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007;16:504-512.
53. Schneeweiss S, Rassen J, Glynn RJ, et al. High dimensional propensity score adjustment. Epidemiology. 2009;20:512-522.
54. Joffe MM. Exhaustion, automation, theory, and confounding. Epidemiology. 2009;20:523-524.
55. Lash TL, Fink AK. Semi-automated sensitivity analysis to assess systematic errors in observational data. Epidemiology. 2003;14:451-458.
56. Brumback BA, Hernan MA, Haneuse SJ, et al. Sensitivity analyses for unmeasured confounding assuming a marginal structural model for repeated measures. Stat Med. 2004;23:749-767.
57. Schneeweiss S. Sensitivity analysis and external adjustment for unmeasured confounders in epidemiologic database studies of therapeutics. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2006;15:291-303.
58. Arah OA, Chiba Y, Greenland S. Bias formulas for external adjustment and sensitivity analysis of unmeasured confounders. Ann Epidemiol. 2008;18:637-646.
59. Schneeweiss S, Glynn RJ, Tsai EH, et al. Adjusting for unmeasured confounders in pharmacoepidemiologic claims data using external information: the example of COX2 inhibitors and myocardial infarction. Epidemiology. 2005;16:17-24.
60. Sturmer T, Glynn RJ, Rothman KJ, et al. Adjustments for unmeasured confounders in pharmacoepidemiologic database studies using external information. Med Care. 2007;45:S158-S165.
61. Sturmer T, Schneeweiss S, Rothman KJ, et al. Performance of propensity score calibration-a simulation study. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;165:1110-1118.
62. Angrist JD, Imbens GW, Rubin DB. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. J Am Stat Assoc. 1996;81:444-455.