Clustering and Residual Confounding in the Application of Marginal Structural Models: Dialysis Modality, Vascular Access, and Mortality

American Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 182, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 535-543

  Kasza, Jessica ^a   Polkinghorne, Kevan R ^a,b   Marshall, Mark R ^c,d,e   McDonald, Stephen P ^b,f   Wolfe, Rory ^a  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b ROYAL ADELAIDE HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

^d Baxter Healthcare Limited   (New Zealand)

^e Baxter Healthcare Ltd ^*  (New Zealand)

^f UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE   (Australia)

Author keywords

Clinical registries; clustering; dialysis; marginal structural model; unmeasured confounding

Indexed keywords

CREATININE;

CLUSTER ANALYSIS; DATA ACQUISITION; DATA SET; DISEASE TREATMENT; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH SURVEY; MODEL VALIDATION; MORTALITY; SERVICE PROVISION; TEMPORAL ANALYSIS; TIME DEPENDENT BEHAVIOR;

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND; BODY MASS; CENTRAL VENOUS CATHETER; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; CREATININE BLOOD LEVEL; DIALYSIS; DISEASE REGISTRY; EPIDEMIOLOGY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HEMODIALYSIS; HEMODIALYSIS PATIENT; HOME DIALYSIS; HUMAN; KIDNEY FUNCTION; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MARGINAL STRUCTURAL MODEL; MEDICAL ASSESSMENT; MORTALITY; PERITONEAL DIALYSIS; REGISTER; STATISTICAL MODEL; SURVIVAL; VASCULAR ACCESS; AUSTRALIA; CLINICAL TRIAL; MULTICENTER STUDY; RENAL INSUFFICIENCY; RENAL REPLACEMENT THERAPY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; SURVIVAL RATE; TIME; TRENDS;

AUSTRALIA; NEW ZEALAND;

ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, STATISTICAL; REGISTRIES; RENAL DIALYSIS; RENAL INSUFFICIENCY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SURVIVAL RATE; TIME FACTORS; VASCULAR ACCESS DEVICES; VICTORIA;

EID: 84940761765     PISSN: 00029262     EISSN: 14766256     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwv090     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Robins JM, Hernán MA, Brumback B. Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology. Epidemiology. 2000;11(5):550-560.
2. Hernán MA, Brumback B, Robins JM. Marginal structural models to estimate the joint causal effect of nonrandomized treatments. J Am Stat Assoc. 2001;96(454):440-448.
3. Joffe MM, Ten Have TR, Feldman HI, et al. Model selection, confounder control, and marginal structural models: review and new applications. Am Stat. 2004;58(4):272-279.
4. Li F, Zaslavsky AM, Landrum MB. Propensity score weighting with multilevel data. Stat Med. 2013;32(19):3373-3387.
5. Larsson S, Lawyer P, Garellick G, et al. Use of 13 disease registries in 5 countries demonstrates the potential to use outcome data to improve health care's value. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31(1):220-227.
6. McDonald S, Clayton P, Hurst K. ANZDATA Registry Report 2012. Adelaide, South Australia: Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry; 2012.
7. Vonesh EF, Snyder JJ, Foley RN, et al. Mortality studies comparing peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis: What do they tell us? Kidney Int Suppl. 2006;70(103):S3-S11.
8. Kumar VA, Sidell MA, Jones JP, et al. Survival of propensity matched incident peritoneal and hemodialysis patients in a United States health care system. Kidney Int. 2014;86(5): 1016-1022.
9. Polkinghorne KR. Vascular access practice in hemodialysis: instrumental in determining patient mortality. Am J Kidney Dis. 2009;53(3):359-362.
10. Marshall MR, Hawley CM, Kerr PG, et al. Home hemodialysis and mortality risk in Australian and New Zealand populations. Am J Kidney Dis. 2011;58(5):782-793.
11. Gutman RA, Blumenkrantz MJ, Chan YK, et al. Controlled comparison of hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis: Veterans Administration Multicenter Study. Kidney Int. 1984;26(4): 459-470.
12. Korevaar JC, Feith GW, Dekker FW, et al. Effect of starting with hemodialysis compared with peritoneal dialysis in patients new on dialysis treatment: a randomized controlled trial. Kidney Int. 2003;64(6):2222-2228.
13. Lukowsky LR, Mehrotra R, Kheifets L, et al. Comparing mortality of peritoneal and hemodialysis patients in the first 2 years of dialysis therapy: a marginal structural model analysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2013;8(4):619-628.
14. Van der Wal WM, Noordzij M, Dekker FW, et al. Comparing mortality in renal patients on hemodialysis versus peritoneal dialysis using a marginal structural model. Int J Biostat. 2010; 6(1):Article 2.
15. Cole SR, Frangakis CE. The consistency statement in causal inference: a definition or an assumption? Epidemiology. 2009; 20(1):3-5.
16. VanderWeele TJ, Hernán MA. Causal inference under multiple versions of treatment. J Causal Inference. 2013;1(1):1-20.
17. Platt RW, Delaney JAC, Suissa S. The positivity assumption and marginal structural models: the example of warfarin use and risk of bleeding. Eur J Epidemiol. 2012;27(2):77-83.
18. Westreich D, Cole SR. Invited commentary: positivity in practice. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;171(6):674-677.
19. Hernán MA, Brumback B, Robins JM. Marginal structural models to estimate the causal effect of zidovudine on the survival of HIV-positive men. Epidemiology. 2000;11(5): 561-570.
20. D'Agostino RB, Lee ML, Belanger AJ, et al. Relation of pooled logistic regression to time dependent Cox regression analysis: the Framingham Heart Study. Stat Med. 1990;9(12): 1501-1515.
21. Cole SR, Hernán MA. Constructing inverse probability weights for marginal structural models. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;168(6): 656-664.
22. Carpenter JR, Kenward MG. Multiple Imputation and Its Application. Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley; 2013.
23. Stata Corporation. Stata Statistical Software, Release 12. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation; 2011.
24. Fewell Z, Hernán MA, Wolfe F, et al. Controlling for timedependent confounding using marginal structural models. Stata J. 2004;4(4):402-420.
25. Bembom O, van der Laan MJ. A practical illustration of the importance of realistic individualized treatment rules in causal inference. Electron J Stat. 2007;1:574-596.
26. Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A. Chapter 26. In: Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using Stata. 3rd ed. College Station, TX: Stata Press; 2012.
27. Tchetgen Tchetgen E. The control outcome calibration approach for causal inference with unobserved confounding. Am J Epidemiol. 2014;179(5):633-640.
28. Henneman TA, van der Laan MJ, Hubbard AE. Estimating Causal Parameters in Marginal Structural Models with Unmeasured Confounders Using Instrumental Variables. Berkeley, CA: The Berkeley Electronic Press; 2002. (U.C. Berkeley Division of Biostatistics Working Paper Series, paper 104).
29. Groenwold RHH, Nelson DB, Nichol KL, et al. Sensitivity analyses to estimate the potential impact of unmeasured confounding in causal research. Int J Epidemiol. 2010;39(1): 107-117.
30. Vanderweele TJ, Arah OA. Bias formulas for sensitivity analysis of unmeasured confounding for general outcomes, treatments, and confounders. Epidemiology. 2011;22(1):42-52.
31. Brumback BA, Hernán MA, Haneuse SJPA, et al. Sensitivity analyses for unmeasured confounding assuming a marginal structural model for repeated measures. Stat Med. 2004;23(5): 749-767.
32. Klungsøyr O, Sexton J, Sandanger I, et al. Sensitivity analysis for unmeasured confounding in a marginal structural Cox proportional hazards model. Lifetime Data Anal. 2009;15(2): 278-294.
33. Morton RL, Snelling P, Webster AC, et al. Dialysis modality preference of patients with CKD and family caregivers: a discrete-choice study. Am J Kidney Dis. 2012;60(1):102-111.