Performance of the high-dimensional propensity score in adjusting for unmeasured confounders

European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

Volumn 72, Issue 12, 2016, Pages 1497-1505

  Guertin, Jason R ^a,b,c,d   Rahme, Elham ^d,e   LeLorier, Jacques ^a  

^a CENTRE HOSPITALIER DE L UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^b Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health   (Canada)

^c MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF THE MCGILL UNIVERSITY HEALTH CENTRE   (Canada)

^e MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Confounding by indication; High dimensional propensity scores; Omitted confounders; Unmeasured confounders

Indexed keywords

ATORVASTATIN; FLUINDOSTATIN; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL COENZYME A REDUCTASE INHIBITOR; MEVINOLIN; PRAVASTATIN; ROSUVASTATIN; SIMVASTATIN;

ADULT; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONFOUNDING VARIABLE; DRUG MEGADOSE; FEMALE; HIGH DIMENSIONAL PROPENSITY SCORE; HUMAN; LOW DRUG DOSE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROPENSITY SCORE; AGED; EPIDEMIOLOGY; FACTUAL DATABASE; MIDDLE AGED;

AGED; ALGORITHMS; CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DATABASES, FACTUAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL-COA REDUCTASE INHIBITORS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROPENSITY SCORE;

EID: 84984804382     PISSN: 00316970     EISSN: 14321041     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00228-016-2118-x     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Black CM, Tadrous M, Cadarette SM (2013) Diffusion of methodological innovation in pharmacoepidemiology: high-dimensional propensity score co-authorship network analysis. Paper presented at the CAPT, Toronto,
2. Garbe E, Kloss S, Suling M, Pigeot I, Schneeweiss S (2012) High-dimensional versus conventional propensity scores in a comparative effectiveness study of coxibs and reduced upper gastrointestinal complications. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 69:549–557
3. Polinski JM, Schneeweiss S, Glynn RJ, Lii J, Rassen JA (2012) Confronting “confounding by health system use” in Medicare Part D: comparative effectiveness of propensity score approaches to confounding adjustment. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 21:90–98
4. Rassen JA, Glynn RJ, Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S (2011) Covariate selection in high-dimensional propensity score analyses of treatment effects in small samples. Am J Epidemiol 173(12):1404–1413
5. Schneeweiss S, Rassen JA, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Mogun H, Brookhart MA (2009) High-dimensional propensity score adjustment in studies of treatment effects using health care claims data. Epidemiology 20(4):512–522
6. Franklin JM, Schneeweiss S, Polinski JM, Rassen JA (2014) Plasmode simulation for the evaluation of pharmacoepidemiologic methods in complex healthcare databases. Comput Stat Data Anal 72:219–226
7. Guertin JR, Rahme E, Dormuth CR, LeLorier J (2016) Head to head comparison of the propensity score and the high-dimensional propensity score matching methods. BMC Med Res Methodol 16(1):1–10
8. Gouvernement du Québec (2014) Banque de données ministérielles MED-ÉCHO. http://www.ramq.gouv.qc.ca/fr/donnees-statistiques/sur-demande/donnees-msss/Pages/med-echo.aspx. Accessed 2014–08-04
9. Gouvernement du Québec (2014) Services pharmaceutiques. http://www.ramq.gouv.qc.ca/fr/donnees-statistiques/sur-demande/donnees-regie/Pages/services-pharmaceutiques.aspx. Accessed 2014–08-04
10. Gouvernement du Québec (2014) Services médicaux rémunérés à l'acte. http://www.ramq.gouv.qc.ca/fr/donnees-statistiques/sur-demande/donnees-regie/Pages/services-medicaux-remuneres-acte.aspx. Accessed 2014–08-04
11. Carter AA, Gomes T, Camacho X, Juurlink DN, Shah BR, Mamdani MM (2013) Risk of incident diabetes among patients treated with statins: population based study. BMJ 346(may23 4):f2610
12. Dormuth CR, Filion KB, Paterson JM, James MT, Teare GF, Raymond CB, Rahme E, Tamim H, Lipscombe L (2014) Higher potency statins and the risk of new diabetes: multicentre, observational study of administrative databases. BMJ 348(may29 6):g3244–g3244
13. Ko DT, Wijeysundera HC, Jackevicius CA, Yousef A, Wang J, Tu JV (2013) Diabetes and cardiovascular events in older myocardial infarction patients prescribed intensive-dose and moderate-dose statins. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 6:315–322
14. Preiss D, Seshasai SR, Welsh P, Murphy SA, Ho JE, Waters DD, DeMicco DA, Barter P, Cannon CP, Sabatine MS, Braunwald E, Kastelein JJ, de Lemos JA, Blazing MA, Pedersen TR, Tikkanen MJ, Sattar N, Ray KK (2011) Risk of incident diabetes with intensive-dose compared with moderate-dose statin therapy: a meta-analysis. JAMA 305(24):2556–2564
15. Wang KL, Liu CJ, Chao TF, Huang CM, Wu CH, Chen SJ, Chen TJ, Lin SJ, Chiang CE (2012) Statins, risk of diabetes, and implications on outcomes in the general population. J Am Coll Cardiol 60(14):1231–1238
16. Zaharan NL, Williams D, Bennett K (2013) Statins and risk of treated incident diabetes in a primary care population. Br J Clin Pharmacol 75(4):1118–1124
17. Austin PC (2009) The relative ability of different propensity score methods to balance measured covariates between treated and untreated subjects in observational studies. Medical decision making: an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making 29(6):661–677
18. Ali MS, Groenwold RH, Pestman WR, Belitser SV, Roes KC, Hoes AW, de Boer A, Klungel OH (2014) Propensity score balance measures in pharmacoepidemiology: a simulation study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 23(8):802–811
19. Austin PC (2009) Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med 28(25):3083–3107
20. Belitser SV, Martens EP, Pestman WR, Groenwold RHH, de Boer A, Klungel OH (2011) Measuring balance and model selection in propensity score methods. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 20(11):1115–1129
21. Mamdani M, Sykora K, Li P, Normand SL, Streiner DL, Austin PC, Rochon PA, Anderson GM (2005) Reader's guide to critical appraisal of cohort studies: 2. Assessing potential for confounding. BMJ 330(7497):960–962
22. Pharmacoepidemiology Toolbox. (2011) Brigham and Women's Hospital. http://www.drugepi.org/dope-downloads/. Accessed 2014–08-04
23. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1985) The bias due to incomplete matching. Biometrics 41(1):103–116
24. Sturmer T, Joshi M, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Rothman KJ, Schneeweiss S (2006) A review of the application of propensity score methods yielded increasing use, advantages in specific settings, but not substantially different estimates compared with conventional multivariable methods. J Clin Epidemiol 59(5):437–447
25. Sturmer T, Rothman KJ, Avorn J, Glynn RJ (2010) Treatment effects in the presence of unmeasured confounding: dealing with observations in the tails of the propensity score distribution—a simulation study. Am J Epidemiol 172(7):843–854
26. Austin PC (2011) Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharm Stat 10(2):150–161
27. Austin PC (2011) An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivar Behav Res 46(3):399–424
28. Woolridge JM (2001) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press, Cambridge
29. Brooks JM, Ohsfeldt RL (2012) Squeezing the balloon: propensity scores and unmeasured covariate balance. Health Services Research:1–21.