Methodological approaches to population based research of screening procedures in the presence of selection bias and exposure measurement error: Colonoscopy and colorectal cancer outcomes in Ontario

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2013, Pages

  Jacob, Binu J ^a,b,c   Sutradhar, Rinku ^c,d   Moineddin, Rahim ^b,c   Baxter, Nancy N ^c,d,e   Urbach, David R ^b,c,d,f  

^a TORONTO GENERAL HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^c INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL EVALUATIVE SCIENCES   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^e ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^f CANCER CARE ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Colonoscopy; Instrumental variable analysis; Propensity score analysis

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; COMPUTER NETWORK; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC);

COMPUTER COMMUNICATION NETWORKS; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC;

MLCS; MLOWN;

EID: 84876686469     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-59     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Canadian Cancer Society/National cancer Institute of Canada, Canadian Cancer Statistics 2010 Toronto, Canada: CCS/NCIC 2010 http://www.cancer.ca/en/ cancer-information/cancer-101/canadian-cancer-statistics-publication/
2. Public Health Canada Statistics 2010 http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/ ncccs-cndcc/ccsrec-eng.php
3. Use of colonoscopy to screen asymptomatic adults for colorectal cancer. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group 380. Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Bond JH, Ahnen DJ, Garewal H, Chejfec G, N Engl J Med 2000 343 162 168 10.1056/NEJM200007203430301 10900274 (Pubitemid 30489212)
4. Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale-Update based on new evidence. Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D, Bond J, Burt R, Ferrucci J, Gastroenterology 2003 124 544 560 10.1053/gast.2003.50044 12557158 (Pubitemid 36169269)
5. Association of colonoscopy and death from colorectal cancer. Baxter NN, Goldwasser MA, Paszat LF, Saskin R, Urbach DR, Rabeneck L, Ann Intern Med 2009 150 1 8 10.7326/0003-4819-150-1-200901060-00306 19075198
6. Protection from right- and left-sided colorectal neoplasms after colonoscopy: population-based study. Brenner H, Hoffmeister M, Arndt V, Stegmaier C, Altenhofen L, Haug U, J Natl Canc Inst 2010 102 89 95 10.1093/jnci/djp436
7. The reduction in colorectal cancer mortality after colonoscopy varies by site of the cancer. Singh H, Nugent Z, Demers AA, Kliewer EV, Mahmud SM, Bernstein CN, Gastroenterology 2010 139 1128 1137 10.1053/j.gastro.2010.06.052 20600026
8. Effect of colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: an instrumental variable analysis. Jacob B, Moineddin R, Sutradhar R, Baxter N, Urbach D, Gastrointest Endosc 2012 76 2 355 364 Under review 10.1016/j.gie.2012.03.247 22658386
9. Patterns of colorectal cancer screening uptake among men and women in the United States. Meissner HI, Breen N, Klabunde CN, Vernon SW, Canc Epidemiol Biomark Prev 2006 15 389 394 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0678 (Pubitemid 43342192)
10. Cost-effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer in the general population. Frazier AL, Colditz GA, Fuchs CS, Kuntz KM, JAMA 2000 284 1954 1961 10.1001/jama.284.15.1954 11035892
11. Cost effectiveness of colonoscopy, based on the appropriateness of an indication. Hassan C, Di GE, Pickhardt PJ, Zullo A, Laghi A, Kim DH, Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008 6 1231 1236 10.1016/j.cgh.2008.06.009 18995214
12. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Fletcher RH, Stillman JS, O'brien MJ, Levin B, Gastroenterology 2006 130 1872 1885 10.1053/j.gastro.2006.03.012 16697750 (Pubitemid 43668826)
13. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, Andrews KS, Brooks D, Bond J, Gastroenterology 2008 134 1570 1595 10.1053/j.gastro.2008.02.002 18384785 (Pubitemid 351615355)
14. Social disparities in the use of colonoscopy by primary care physicians in Ontario. Jacob BJ, Baxter NN, Moineddin R, Sutradhar R, Del GL, Urbach DR, BMC Gastroenterol 2011 11 102 10.1186/1471-230X-11-102 21955593
15. Vinden C, Schultz S, Rabeneck L, Use of bowel procedures in Ontario: ICES Atlas Toronto: Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences 2004
16. Comparing Standard Regression, Propensity Score Matching, and Instrumental Variables Methods for Determining the Influence of Mammography on Stage of Diagnosis. Posner MA, Ash AS, Freund KM, Moskowitz MA, Shwartz M, Health Serv Outcome Res Meth 2001 2 279 290 10.1023/A:1020323429121
17. The effectiveness of right heart catheterization in the initial care of critically ill patients. SUPPORT Investigators. Connors AF Jr, Speroff T, Dawson NV, Thomas C, Harrell FE Jr, Wagner D, JAMA 1996 276 889 897 10.1001/jama.1996.03540110043030 8782638 (Pubitemid 26301608)
18. Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. D'Agostino RB Jr, Stat Med 1998 17 2265 2281 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19981015)17:19<2265::AID-SIM918>3.0. CO;2-B 9802183 (Pubitemid 28466823)
19. Econometrics in outcomes research: the use of instrumental variables. Newhouse JP, McClellan M, Annu Rev Publ Health 1998 19 17 34 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.19.1.17 (Pubitemid 28279922)
20. Instrumental variables when evaluating screening trials: estimating the benefit of detecting cancer by screening. McIntosh MW, Stat Med 1999 18 2775 2794 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19991030)18:20<2775::AID-SIM196>3.0.CO;2-I 10521866 (Pubitemid 29481410)
21. An application of capture recapture methods to the estimation of completeness of cancer registration. Robles SC, Marrett LD, Clarke EA, Risch HA, J Clin Epidemiol 1988 41 495 501 10.1016/0895-4356(88)90052-2 3367181
22. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Improving health care data in Ontario: ICES investigative report Toronto: ICES 2005
23. A quantitative measure of continuity of care. Bice TW, Boxerman SB, Med Care 1977 15 347 349 10.1097/00005650-197704000-00010 859364 (Pubitemid 8096246)
24. Continuity of medical care: conceptualization and measurement. Shortell SM, Med Care 1976 14 377 391 10.1097/00005650-197605000-00001 1271879
25. Primary Care in Ontario, Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) Atlas Toronto: ICES 2006
26. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA, J Clin Epidemiol 1992 45 613 619 -619 10.1016/0895-4356(92)90133-8 1607900
27. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR, J Chronic Dis 1987 40 373 383 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8 3558716 (Pubitemid 17055592)
28. Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Rubin DB, Ann Intern Med 1997 127 757 763 10.7326/0003-4819-127-8-Part-2- 199710151-00064 9382394 (Pubitemid 27446562)
29. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Rosenbaum P, Rubin D, Biometrika 1983 70 41 55 10.1093/biomet/70.1.41
30. Mortality benefit of immediate revascularization of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in patients with contraindications to thrombolytic therapy: a propensity analysis1. Grzybowski M, Clements EA, Parsons L, Welch R, Tintinalli AT, Ross MA, JAMA 2003 290 1891 1898 10.1001/jama.290.14.1891 14532318 (Pubitemid 37430606)
31. Instrumental variables and inverse probability weighting for causal inference from longitudinal observational studies. Hogan JW, Lancaster T, Stat Meth Med Res 2004 13 17 48 10.1191/0962280204sm351ra (Pubitemid 38094365)
32. Leslie R, Ghomrawi H, The Use of Propensity Scores and Instrumental Variable Methods to Adjust For Treatment Selection Bias SAS Global Forum: Statistics and Data Analysis 2008
33. Kosanke J, Bergstralh E, Match one or more controls to cases using the GREEDY algorithm Rochester, MN: Mayo Clinic College of Medicine 2004
34. Reducing bias in a propensity score matched-pair sample using greedy matching techniques. Parsons LS, Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual SAS (Users Group International Conference) Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc 2001
35. 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. Stukel TA, Fisher ES, Wennberg DE, Alter DA, Gottlieb DJ, Vermeulen MJ, JAMA 2007 297 278 285 10.1001/jama.297.3. 278 17227979 (Pubitemid 46143305)
36. Reader's guide to critical appraisal of cohort studies: Assessing potential for confounding. Mamdani M, Sykora K, Li P, Normand SL, Streiner DL, Austin PC, BMJ 2005 330 960 962 10.1136/bmj.330.7497.960 15845982 (Pubitemid 40592320)
37. Facility hemodialysis vascular access use and mortality in countries participating in DOPPS: an instrumental variable analysis. Pisoni RL, Arrington CJ, Albert JM, Ethier J, Kimata N, Krishnan M, Am J Kidney Dis 2009 53 475 491 10.1053/j.ajkd.2008.10.043 19150158
38. The relationship between hospital volume and mortality in mechanical ventilation: an instrumental variable analysis. Kahn JM, Ten Have TR, Iwashyna TJ, Health Serv Res 2009 44 862 879 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2009.00959.x 19674428
39. Estimating intervention effects in a complex multi-level smoking prevention study. Falcaro M, Povey AC, Fielder A, Nahit E, Pickles A, Int J Environ Res Publ Health 2009 6 463 477 10.3390/ijerph6020463
40. An introduction to instrumental variables for epidemiologists. Greenland S, Int J Epidemiol 2000 29 722 729 10.1093/ije/29.4.722 10922351 (Pubitemid 30612241)
41. Alternative solutions to the problem of selection bias in an analysis of federal residential drug treatment programs. Rhodes W, Pelissier B, Gaes G, Saylor W, Camp S, Wallace S, Eval Rev 2001 25 331 369 10.1177/0193841X0102500303 11393871 (Pubitemid 33602819)
42. The marginal benefits of invasive treatments for acute myocardial infarction: does insurance coverage matter? Brooks JM, McClellan M, Wong HS, Inquiry 2000 37 75 90 10892359 (Pubitemid 30415716)
43. Who is the marginal patient? Understanding instrumental variables estimates of treatment effects. Harris KM, Remler DK, Health Serv Res 1998 33 1337 1360 9865223 (Pubitemid 29006391)
44. Instrumental variables I: instrumental variables exploit natural variation in nonexperimental data to estimate causal relationships. Rassen JA, Brookhart MA, Glynn RJ, Mittleman MA, Schneeweiss S, J Clin Epidemiol 2009 62 12 1226 1232 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.12.005 19356901
45. Causal Effect of Ambulatory Specialiy Care on Mortality Following Myocardial Infarction: A comparison of Propensity Score and Instrumental Variable Analyses. Landrum MB, Ayanian JZ, Health Serv Outcome Res Meth 2001 2 221 245 10.1023/A:1020367111374
46. Barriers to colorectal cancer screening: a comparison of reports from primary care physicians and average-risk adults. Klabunde CN, Vernon SW, Nadel MR, Breen N, Seeff LC, Brown ML, Med Care 2005 43 939 944 10.1097/01.mlr. 0000173599.67470.ba 16116360 (Pubitemid 41323144)