Literature DB >> 19109770

Sensitivity analysis for unmeasured confounding in a marginal structural Cox proportional hazards model.

Ole Klungsøyr1, Joe Sexton, Inger Sandanger, Jan F Nygård.   

Abstract

Sensitivity analysis for unmeasured confounding should be reported more often, especially in observational studies. In the standard Cox proportional hazards model, this requires substantial assumptions and can be computationally difficult. The marginal structural Cox proportional hazards model (Cox proportional hazards MSM) with inverse probability weighting has several advantages compared to the standard Cox model, including situations with only one assessment of exposure (point exposure) and time-independent confounders. We describe how simple computations provide sensitivity for unmeasured confounding in a Cox proportional hazards MSM with point exposure. This is achieved by translating the general framework for sensitivity analysis for MSMs by Robins and colleagues to survival time data. Instead of bias-corrected observations, we correct the hazard rate to adjust for a specified amount of unmeasured confounding. As an additional bonus, the Cox proportional hazards MSM is robust against bias from differential loss to follow-up. As an illustration, the Cox proportional hazards MSM was applied in a reanalysis of the association between smoking and depression in a population-based cohort of Norwegian adults. The association was moderately sensitive for unmeasured confounding.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19109770     DOI: 10.1007/s10985-008-9109-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal        ISSN: 1380-7870            Impact factor:   1.588


  22 in total

1.  Method for conducting sensitivity analysis.

Authors:  M A Hernán; J M Robins
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Prevalence, incidence and age at onset of psychiatric disorders in Norway.

Authors:  I Sandanger; J F Nygård; G Ingebrigtsen; T Sørensen; O S Dalgard
Journal:  Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 4.328

3.  Marginal structural models as a tool for standardization.

Authors:  Tosiya Sato; Yutaka Matsuyama
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 4.822

4.  Quantifying biases in causal models: classical confounding vs collider-stratification bias.

Authors:  Sander Greenland
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 4.822

5.  Sensitivity analyses for unmeasured confounding assuming a marginal structural model for repeated measures.

Authors:  Babette A Brumback; Miguel A Hernán; Sebastien J P A Haneuse; James M Robins
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2004-03-15       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Cigarette smoking and incidence of first depressive episode: an 11-year, population-based follow-up study.

Authors:  Ole Klungsøyr; Jan F Nygård; Tom Sørensen; Inger Sandanger
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2006-01-04       Impact factor: 4.897

7.  Assessing the sensitivity of regression results to unmeasured confounders in observational studies.

Authors:  D Y Lin; B M Psaty; R A Kronmal
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 2.571

8.  Stressful life events and depressive symptoms: disaggregating the effects of acute stressors and chronic strains.

Authors:  W R Avison; R J Turner
Journal:  J Health Soc Behav       Date:  1988-09

9.  Smoking behaviour as a predictor of depression among Finnish men and women: a prospective cohort study of adult twins.

Authors:  Tellervo Korhonen; Ulla Broms; Jyrki Varjonen; Kalle Romanov; Markku Koskenvuo; Taru Kinnunen; Jaakko Kaprio
Journal:  Psychol Med       Date:  2006-12-21       Impact factor: 7.723

10.  Genetic and environmental risk factors in adolescent substance use.

Authors:  Judy Silberg; Michael Rutter; Brian D'Onofrio; Lindon Eaves
Journal:  J Child Psychol Psychiatry       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 8.982

View more
  3 in total

1.  Double inverse-weighted estimation of cumulative treatment effects under nonproportional hazards and dependent censoring.

Authors:  Douglas E Schaubel; Guanghui Wei
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  How unmeasured confounding in a competing risks setting can affect treatment effect estimates in observational studies.

Authors:  Michael Andrew Barrowman; Niels Peek; Mark Lambie; Glen Philip Martin; Matthew Sperrin
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2019-07-31       Impact factor: 4.615

3.  Iron status predicts malaria risk in Malawian preschool children.

Authors:  Femkje A M Jonker; Job C J Calis; Michael Boele van Hensbroek; Kamija Phiri; Ronald B Geskus; Bernard J Brabin; Tjalling Leenstra
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-08-16       Impact factor: 3.240

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.