Literature DB >> 21394812

The implications of propensity score variable selection strategies in pharmacoepidemiology: an empirical illustration.

Amanda R Patrick1, Sebastian Schneeweiss, M Alan Brookhart, Robert J Glynn, Kenneth J Rothman, Jerry Avorn, Til Stürmer.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To examine the effect of variable selection strategies on the performance of propensity score (PS) methods in a study of statin initiation, mortality, and hip fracture assuming a true mortality reduction of < 15% and no effect on hip fracture.
METHODS: We compared seniors initiating statins with seniors initiating glaucoma medications. Out of 202 covariates with a prevalence > 5%, PS variable selection strategies included none, a priori, factors predicting exposure, and factors predicting outcome. We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for statin initiation on mortality and hip fracture from Cox models controlling for various PSs.
RESULTS: During 1 year follow-up, 2693 of 55,610 study subjects died and 496 suffered a hip fracture. The crude HR for statin initiators was 0.64 for mortality and 0.46 for hip fracture. Adjusting for the non-parsimonious PS yielded effect estimates of 0.83 (95%CI:0.75-0.93) and 0.72 (95%CI:0.56-0.93). Including in the PS only covariates associated with a greater than 20% increase or reduction in outcome rates yielded effect estimates of 0.84 (95%CI:0.75-0.94) and 0.76 (95%CI:0.61-0.95), which were closest to the effects predicted from randomized trials.
CONCLUSION: Due to the difficulty of pre-specifying all potential confounders of an exposure-outcome association, data-driven approaches to PS variable selection may be useful. Selecting covariates strongly associated with exposure but unrelated to outcome should be avoided, because this may increase bias. Selecting variables for PS based on their association with the outcome may help to reduce such bias.
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21394812      PMCID: PMC3123427          DOI: 10.1002/pds.2098

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf        ISSN: 1053-8569            Impact factor:   2.890


  27 in total

1.  Estimating exposure effects by modelling the expectation of exposure conditional on confounders.

Authors:  J M Robins; S D Mark; W K Newey
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group.

Authors:  R B D'Agostino
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1998-10-15       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Matching using estimated propensity scores: relating theory to practice.

Authors:  D B Rubin; N Thomas
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Bias due to misclassification in the estimation of relative risk.

Authors:  K T Copeland; H Checkoway; A J McMichael; R H Holbrook
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1977-05       Impact factor: 4.897

5.  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

6.  Simulation study of confounder-selection strategies.

Authors:  G Maldonado; S Greenland
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1993-12-01       Impact factor: 4.897

7.  Internal validation of Medicare claims data.

Authors:  J A Baron; G Lu-Yao; J Barrett; D McLerran; E S Fisher
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 4.822

8.  Inhibitors of hydroxymethylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase and risk of fracture among older women.

Authors:  K A Chan; S E Andrade; M Boles; D S Buist; G A Chase; J G Donahue; M J Goodman; J H Gurwitz; A Z LaCroix; R Platt
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2000-06-24       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Paradoxical relations of drug treatment with mortality in older persons.

Authors:  R J Glynn; E L Knight; R Levin; J Avorn
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 4.822

10.  Evaluating medication effects outside of clinical trials: new-user designs.

Authors:  Wayne A Ray
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2003-11-01       Impact factor: 4.897

View more
  53 in total

1.  Invited commentary: understanding bias amplification.

Authors:  Judea Pearl
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2011-10-27       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  Effects of adjusting for instrumental variables on bias and precision of effect estimates.

Authors:  Jessica A Myers; Jeremy A Rassen; Joshua J Gagne; Krista F Huybrechts; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Kenneth J Rothman; Marshall M Joffe; Robert J Glynn
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2011-10-24       Impact factor: 4.897

3.  Propensity score methods for confounding control in nonexperimental research.

Authors:  M Alan Brookhart; Richard Wyss; J Bradley Layton; Til Stürmer
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2013-09-10

4.  Model Misspecification When Excluding Instrumental Variables From PS Models in Settings Where Instruments Modify the Effects of Covariates on Treatment.

Authors:  Richard Wyss; Alan R Ellis; Mark Lunt; M Alan Brookhart; Robert J Glynn; Til Stürmer
Journal:  Epidemiol Methods       Date:  2014-12

5.  Demystifying propensity scores.

Authors:  G N Okoli; R D Sanders; P Myles
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 9.166

6.  The ACCE method: an approach for obtaining quantitative or qualitative estimates of residual confounding that includes unmeasured confounding.

Authors:  Eric G Smith
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2014-08-11

7.  Comparative Safety and Effectiveness of Direct-Acting Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin: a National Cohort Study of Nursing Home Residents.

Authors:  Matthew Alcusky; Jennifer Tjia; David D McManus; Anne L Hume; Marc Fisher; Kate L Lapane
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-04-06       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Propensity scores for confounder adjustment when assessing the effects of medical interventions using nonexperimental study designs.

Authors:  T Stürmer; R Wyss; R J Glynn; M A Brookhart
Journal:  J Intern Med       Date:  2014-02-13       Impact factor: 8.989

Review 9.  Propensity score methods to control for confounding in observational cohort studies: a statistical primer and application to endoscopy research.

Authors:  Jeff Y Yang; Michael Webster-Clark; Jennifer L Lund; Robert S Sandler; Evan S Dellon; Til Stürmer
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2019-04-30       Impact factor: 9.427

10.  Evaluating possible confounding by prescriber in comparative effectiveness research.

Authors:  Jessica M Franklin; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Krista F Huybrechts; Robert J Glynn
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 4.822

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.