Adjusted analyses in studies addressing therapy and harm: Users' guides to the medical literature

JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

Volumn 317, Issue 7, 2017, Pages 748-759

  Agoritsas, Thomas ^a,b   Merglen, Arnaud ^a,b,c   Shah, Nilay D ^d   O'Donnell, Martin ^e   Guyatt, Gordon H ^b  

^a GENEVA UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS   (Switzerland)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN   (Canada)

^d MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^e NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND   (Ireland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONFOUNDING VARIABLE; DEPENDENT VARIABLE; HUMAN; INDEPENDENT VARIABLE; INSTRUMENTAL VARIABLE ANALYSIS; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PROGNOSIS; PROPENSITY SCORE; RANDOMIZATION; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SELECTION BIAS; STRATIFIED SAMPLE; ADVERSE EFFECTS; AGE; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; COHORT ANALYSIS; HEART CATHETERIZATION; MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; PROCEDURES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RISK FACTOR; STATISTICAL BIAS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

AGE FACTORS; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CARDIAC CATHETERIZATION; COHORT STUDIES; HUMANS; MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES AS TOPIC; PROGNOSIS; PROPENSITY SCORE; RANDOM ALLOCATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RISK ADJUSTMENT; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; SELECTION BIAS;

EID: 85014638634     PISSN: 00987484     EISSN: 15383598     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.20029     Document Type: Review

References (72)

1. Rathore SS, Epstein AJ, Volpp KG, Krumholz HM. Regionalization of care for acute coronary syndromes. JAMA. 2005;293(11):1383-1387.
2. Mehta SR, Cannon CP, Fox KA, et al. Routine vs selective invasive strategies in patients with acute coronary syndromes. JAMA. 2005;293(23):2908-2917.
3. Stukel TA, Fisher ES, Wennberg DE, et al. Analysis of observational studies in the presence of treatment selection bias. JAMA. 2007;297(3): 278-285.
4. Del Fiol G, Workman TE, Gorman PN. Clinical questions raised by clinicians at the point of care. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(5):710-718.
5. Walsh M, Perkovic V, Manns B, et al. Therapy (randomized trials). In: Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade MO, Cook DJ, eds. Users' Guides to the Medical Literature. 3rd ed. New York, NY:McGraw-Hill; 2015.
6. Sullivan P, Goldmann D. The promise of comparative effectiveness research. JAMA. 2011; 305(4):400-401.
7. Hochman M, McCormick D. Characteristics of published comparative effectiveness studies of medications. JAMA. 2010;303(10):951-958.
8. Demaria AN. Comparative effectiveness research. J AmColl Cardiol. 2009;53(11):973-975.
9. Dahabreh IJ, Kent DM. Can the learning health care system be educated with observational data? JAMA. 2014;312(2):129-130.
10. Hemkens LG, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Ioannidis JP. Agreement of treatment effects for mortality from routinely collected data and subsequent randomized trials. BMJ. 2016;352:i493.
11. Kennedy CC, Jaeschke R, Keitz S, et al. Tips for teachers of evidence-based medicine: adjusting for prognostic imbalances (confounding variables) in studies on therapy or harm. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(3):337-343.
12. Ioannidis JP, Haidich AB, Pappa M, et al. Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies. JAMA. 2001;286(7):821-830.
13. Saquib N, Saquib J, Ioannidis JP. Practices and impact of primary outcome adjustment in randomized controlled trials. BMJ. 2013;347:f4313.
14. Levine M, Walter S, Lee H, Haines T, Holbrook A, Moyer V. Users' Guides to the Medical Literature, IV: how to use an article about harm. JAMA. 1994; 271(20):1615-1619.
15. Brignardello-Petersen R, Ioannidis JPA, Tomlinson G, Guyatt G. Surprising results of randomized trials. In: Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade MO, Cook DJ, eds. Users' Guides to the Medical Literature. 3rd ed. New York, NY:McGraw-Hill; 2015.
16. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al; GRADE Working Group. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924-926.
17. Stanner SA, Hughes J, Kelly CN, Buttriss J. A review of the epidemiological evidence for the "antioxidant hypothesis". Public Health Nutr. 2004; 7(3):407-422.
18. Willcox JK, Ash SL, Catignani GL. Antioxidants and prevention of chronic disease. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2004;44(4):275-295.
19. Bjelakovic G, Nikolova D, Gluud C. Antioxidant supplements to prevent mortality. JAMA. 2013;310 (11):1178-1179.
20. Bjelakovic G, Nikolova D, Gluud LL, Simonetti RG, Gluud C. Antioxidant supplements for prevention of mortality in healthy participants and patients with various diseases. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;3(3):CD007176.
21. Ebrahim S, Walter SD, Cook DJ, Jaeschke R, Guyatt G. Correlation and regression. In: Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade MO, Cook DJ, eds. Users' Guides to the Medical Literature. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2015.
22. Guyatt GH, Haynes RB, Sackett DL. Analyzing data. In: Haynes RB, Sackett DL, Guyatt GH, Tugwell P, eds. Clinical Epidemiology: How to Do Clinical Practice Research. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006.
23. Kleinbaum DG, Klein M. Survival Analysis: A Self-Learning Text. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Springer; 2012.
24. Kern LM, Malhotra S, Barrón Y, et al. Accuracy of electronically reported "meaningful use" clinical quality measures. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(2):77-83.
25. Courvoisier DS, Combescure C, Agoritsas T, Gayet-Ageron A, Perneger TV. Performance of logistic regression modeling. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64(9):993-1000.
26. Guyatt GH. Determining prognosis and creating clinical decision rules. In: Haynes RB, Sackett DL, Guyatt GH, Tugwell P, eds. Clinical Epidemiology: How to Do Clinical Practice Research. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006.
27. Austin PC, Steyerberg EW. The number of subjects per variable required in linear regression analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(6):627-636.
28. Stukel TA, Lucas FL, Wennberg DE. Long-term outcomes of regional variations in intensity of invasive vs medical management of Medicare patients with acutemyocardial infarction. JAMA. 2005;293(11):1329-1337.
29. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J Am Stat Assoc. 1984;79(387): 516-524.
30. Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res. 2011; 46(3):399-424.
31. Austin PC. A tutorial and case study in propensity score analysis. Multivariate Behav Res. 2011;46(1):119-151.
32. Biondi-Zoccai G, Romagnoli E, Agostoni P, et al. Are propensity scores really superior to standard multivariable analysis? Contemp Clin Trials. 2011;32 (5):731-740.
33. Kurth T, Walker AM, Glynn RJ, et al. Results of multivariable logistic regression, propensity matching, propensity adjustment, and propensity-based weighting under conditions of nonuniform effect. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163(3): 262-270.
34. Austin PC. The performance of different propensity-score methods for estimating differences in proportions (risk differences or absolute risk reductions) in observational studies. Stat Med. 2010;29(20):2137-2148.
35. Austin PC, Stuart EA. The performance of inverse probability of treatment weighting and full matching on the propensity score in the presence of model misspecification when estimating the effect of treatment on survival outcomes [published online April 30, 2015]. Stat Methods Med Res. doi:10.1177/0962280215584401
36. Austin PC. Propensity-score matching in the cardiovascular surgery literature from 2004 to 2006. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007;134(5):1128-1135.
37. Austin PC. Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharm Stat. 2011;10(2): 150-161.
38. Crown WH. Propensity-score matching in economic analyses. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2014;12(1):7-18.
39. Kuss O. The z-difference can be used to measure covariate balance in matched propensity score analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(11):1302-1307.
40. Ali MS, Groenwold RH, Belitser SV, et al. Reporting of covariate selection and balance assessment in propensity score analysis is suboptimal. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(2):112-121.
41. Luo Z, Gardiner JC, Bradley CJ. Applying propensity score methods in medical research. Med Care Res Rev. 2010;67(5):528-554.
42. Shah BR, Laupacis A, Hux JE, Austin PC. Propensity score methods gave similar results to traditional regression modeling in observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(6):550-559.
43. D'Agostino RB Jr, D'Agostino RB Sr. Estimating treatment effects using observational data. JAMA. 2007;297(3):314-316.
44. Cepeda MS, Boston R, Farrar JT, Strom BL. Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders. Am J Epidemiol. 2003; 158(3):280-287.
45. Rassen JA, Glynn RJ, Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S. Covariate selection in high-dimensional propensity score analyses of treatment effects in small samples. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173(12):1404-1413.
46. Schneeweiss S, Rassen JA, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Mogun H, Brookhart MA. High-dimensional propensity score adjustment in studies of treatment effects using health care claims data. Epidemiology. 2009;20(4):512-522.
47. Martens EP, Pestman WR, de Boer A, et al. Systematic differences in treatment effect estimates between propensity score methods and logistic regression. Int J Epidemiol. 2008;37(5): 1142-1147.
48. Dahabreh IJ, Sheldrick RC, Paulus JK, et al. Do observational studies using propensity score methods agree with randomized trials? Eur Heart J. 2012;33(15):1893-1901.
49. Zhang Z, Ni H, Xu X. Observational studies using propensity score analysis underestimated the effect sizes in critical care medicine. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(8):932-939.
50. Newhouse JP, McClellan M. Econometrics in outcomes research: the use of instrumental variables. Annu Rev Public Health. 1998;19:17-34.
51. Chen Y, Briesacher BA. Use of instrumental variable in prescription drug research with observational data: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(6):687-700.
52. Davies NM, Smith GD, Windmeijer F, Martin RM. Issues in the reporting and conduct of instrumental variable studies. Epidemiology. 2013;24(3):363-369.
53. Brookhart MA, Rassen JA, Schneeweiss S. Instrumental variable methods in comparative safety and effectiveness research. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2010;19(6):537-554.
54. Fang G, Brooks JM, Chrischilles EA. Apples and oranges? interpretations of risk adjustment and instrumental variable estimates of intended treatment effects using observational data. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;175(1):60-65.
55. Concato J, Lawler EV, Lew RA, Gaziano JM, Aslan M, Huang GD. Observational methods in comparative effectiveness research. Am J Med. 2010;123(12)(suppl 1):e16-e23.
56. Fang G, Brooks JM, Chrischilles EA. Comparison of instrumental variable analysis using a new instrument with risk adjustment methods to reduce confounding by indication. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;175(11):1142-1151.
57. Lee CC, Ho HC, Hsiao SH, et al. Infectious complications in head and neck cancer patients treated with cetuximab: propensity score and instrumental variable analysis. PLoS One. 2012;7(11): e50163.
58. Lalani T, Cabell CH, Benjamin DK, et al. Analysis of the impact of early surgery on in-hospital mortality of native valve endocarditis: use of propensity score and instrumental variable methods to adjust for treatment-selection bias. Circulation. 2010;121(8):1005-1013.
59. Swanson SA, Hernán MA. Commentary: how to report instrumental variable analyses (suggestions welcome). Epidemiology. 2013;24(3):370-374.
60. Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S. Preference-based instrumental variable methods for the estimation of treatment effects. Int J Biostat. 2007;3(1):14.
61. Swanson SA, Hernán MA. Think globally, act globally: an epidemiologist's perspective on instrumental variable estimation. Stat Sci. 2014;29 (3):371-374.
62. Swanson SA, Robins JM, Miller M, Hernán MA. Selecting on treatment: a pervasive form of bias in instrumental variable analyses. Am J Epidemiol. 2015;181(3):191-197.
63. Martens EP, Pestman WR, de Boer A, et al. Instrumental variables: application and limitations. Epidemiology. 2006;17(3):260-267.
64. Tan HJ, Norton EC, Ye Z, et al. Long-term survival following partial vs radical nephrectomy among older patients with early-stage kidney cancer. JAMA. 2012;307(15):1629-1635.
65. Pirracchio R, Sprung C, Payen D, Chevret S. Benefits of ICU admission in critically ill patients: whether instrumental variable methods or propensity scores should be used. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:132.
66. Crown WH, Henk HJ, Vanness DJ. Some cautions on the use of instrumental variables estimators in outcomes research. Value Health. 2011;14(8):1078-1084.
67. Garabedian LF, Chu P, Toh S, Zaslavsky AM, Soumerai SB. Potential bias of instrumental variable analyses for observational comparative effectiveness research. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161 (2):131-138.
68. Finucane FF, Madans JH, Bush TL, et al. Decreased risk of stroke among postmenopausal hormone users. Arch Intern Med. 1993;153(1):73-79.
69. Wassertheil-Smoller S, Hendrix SL, Limacher M, et al. Effect of estrogen plus progestin on stroke in postmenopausal women: the Women's Health Initiative. JAMA. 2003;289(20):2673-2684.
70. Devereaux PJ, Yang H, Yusuf S, et al. Effects of extended-release metoprolol succinate in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery (POISE trial). Lancet. 2008;371(9627):1839-1847.
71. Blais L, Desgagné A, LeLorier J. 3-Hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors and the risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(15):2363-2368.
72. Dale KM, Coleman CI, Henyan NN, Kluger J, White CM. Statins and cancer risk: ameta-analysis. JAMA. 2006;295(1):74-80.