Literature DB >> 19457638

A most stubborn bias: no adjustment method fully resolves confounding by indication in observational studies.

Jaclyn L F Bosco1, Rebecca A Silliman, Soe Soe Thwin, Ann M Geiger, Diana S M Buist, Marianne N Prout, Marianne Ulcickas Yood, Reina Haque, Feifei Wei, Timothy L Lash.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of methods that control for confounding by indication, we compared breast cancer recurrence rates among women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy with those who did not. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: In a medical record review-based study of breast cancer treatment in older women (n=1798) diagnosed between 1990 and 1994, our crude analysis suggested that adjuvant chemotherapy was positively associated with recurrence (hazard ratio [HR]=2.6; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.9, 3.5). We expected a protective effect, so postulated that the crude association was confounded by indications for chemotherapy. We attempted to adjust for this confounding by restriction, multivariable regression, propensity scores (PSs), and instrumental variable (IV) methods.
RESULTS: After restricting to women at high risk for recurrence (n=946), chemotherapy was not associated with recurrence (HR=1.1; 95% CI=0.7, 1.6) using multivariable regression. PS adjustment yielded similar results (HR=1.3; 95% CI=0.8, 2.0). The IV-like method yielded a protective estimate (HR=0.9; 95% CI=0.2, 4.3); however, imbalances of measured factors across levels of the IV suggested residual confounding.
CONCLUSION: Conventional methods do not control for unmeasured factors, which often remain important when addressing confounding by indication. PS and IV analysis methods can be useful under specific situations, but neither method adequately controlled confounding by indication in this study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19457638      PMCID: PMC2789188          DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.03.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  36 in total

Review 1.  Methods in health services research. Interpreting the evidence: choosing between randomised and non-randomised studies.

Authors:  M McKee; A Britton; N Black; K McPherson; C Sanderson; C Bain
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-07-31

2.  Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders.

Authors:  M Soledad Cepeda; Ray Boston; John T Farrar; Brian L Strom
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2003-08-01       Impact factor: 4.897

3.  Meeting highlights: adjuvant therapy for primary breast cancer.

Authors:  J H Glick; R D Gelber; A Goldhirsch; H J Senn
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1992-10-07       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Analytic strategies to adjust confounding using exposure propensity scores and disease risk scores: nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and short-term mortality in the elderly.

Authors:  Til Stürmer; Sebastian Schneeweiss; M Alan Brookhart; Kenneth J Rothman; Jerry Avorn; Robert J Glynn
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2005-05-01       Impact factor: 4.897

Review 5.  NIH consensus conference. Treatment of early-stage breast cancer.

Authors: 
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1991-01-16       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Re: prevalence of cancer.

Authors:  T L Lash; R A Silliman
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1998-03-04       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 7.  Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores.

Authors:  D B Rubin
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1997-10-15       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  The treatment of unrelated disorders in patients with chronic medical diseases.

Authors:  D A Redelmeier; S H Tan; G L Booth
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1998-05-21       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation.

Authors:  M E Charlson; P Pompei; K L Ales; C R MacKenzie
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1987

10.  Using probabilistic corrections to account for abstractor agreement in medical record reviews.

Authors:  Timothy L Lash; Matthew P Fox; Soe Soe Thwin; Ann M Geiger; Diana S M Buist; Feifei Wei; Terry S Field; Marianne Ulcickas Yood; Floyd J Frost; Virginia P Quinn; Marianne N Prout; Rebecca A Silliman
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2007-04-03       Impact factor: 4.897

View more
  118 in total

Review 1.  A systematic review of surgery for non-curative gastric cancer.

Authors:  Alyson L Mahar; Natalie G Coburn; Simron Singh; Calvin Law; Lucy K Helyer
Journal:  Gastric Cancer       Date:  2011-10-28       Impact factor: 7.370

2.  Opioids in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the whole picture using all available evidence.

Authors:  David C Currow; Magnus Ekström; Miriam J Johnson
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2016-01-04       Impact factor: 4.335

Review 3.  A Review of Systemic Corticosteroid Use in Pregnancy and the Risk of Select Pregnancy and Birth Outcomes.

Authors:  Gretchen Bandoli; Kristin Palmsten; Chelsey J Forbess Smith; Christina D Chambers
Journal:  Rheum Dis Clin North Am       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 2.670

4.  Outcomes after intensity-modulated versus conformal radiotherapy in older men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer.

Authors:  Justin E Bekelman; Nandita Mitra; Jason Efstathiou; Kaijun Liao; Robert Sunderland; Deborah N Yeboa; Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2011-04-16       Impact factor: 7.038

5.  Temporal trends in new exposure to antiepileptic drug monotherapy and suicide-related behavior.

Authors:  Mary Jo V Pugh; Dale Hesdorffer; Chen-Pin Wang; Megan E Amuan; Jeffrey V Tabares; Erin P Finley; Joyce A Cramer; Andres M Kanner; Craig J Bryan
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2013-10-30       Impact factor: 9.910

6.  Confounding control in healthcare database research: challenges and potential approaches.

Authors:  M Alan Brookhart; Til Stürmer; Robert J Glynn; Jeremy Rassen; Sebastian Schneeweiss
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  Liberal Versus Restrictive Intravenous Fluid Therapy for Early Septic Shock: Rationale for a Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Wesley H Self; Matthew W Semler; Rinaldo Bellomo; Samuel M Brown; Bennett P deBoisblanc; Matthew C Exline; Adit A Ginde; Colin K Grissom; David R Janz; Alan E Jones; Kathleen D Liu; Stephen P J Macdonald; Chadwick D Miller; Pauline K Park; Lora A Reineck; Todd W Rice; Jay S Steingrub; Daniel Talmor; Donald M Yealy; Ivor S Douglas; Nathan I Shapiro
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  2018-05-10       Impact factor: 5.721

8.  Older breast cancer survivors: geriatric assessment domains are associated with poor tolerance of treatment adverse effects and predict mortality over 7 years of follow-up.

Authors:  Kerri M Clough-Gorr; Andreas E Stuck; Soe Soe Thwin; Rebecca A Silliman
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-12-14       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Brief Report: Cesarean Delivery and Subsequent Fecundability.

Authors:  Rose G Radin; Ellen M Mikkelsen; Kenneth J Rothman; Elizabeth E Hatch; Henrik T Sorensen; Anders H Riis; Wendy Kuohung; Lauren A Wise
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 4.822

10.  Impaired visual fixation at the age of 2 years in children born before the twenty-eighth week of gestation. Antecedents and correlates in the multicenter ELGAN study.

Authors:  Anuradha Phadke; Michael E Msall; Patrick Droste; Elizabeth N Allred; Thomas Michael O'Shea; Karl Kuban; Olaf Dammann; Alan Leviton
Journal:  Pediatr Neurol       Date:  2014-03-15       Impact factor: 3.372

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.