Literature DB >> 23849156

Matching on provider is risky.

Alexander M Walker1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To illustrate that matching on provider may exacerbate, not remove, bias. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: The degree of confounding bias depends in part on the proportions of treatment variation that can be ascribed to confounders and to instruments, respectively. This commentary raises the specific example of bias by matching on hospital induced in a study of coronary artery bypass graft surgery patients and illustrates the effect of matching on provider in a constructed example.
RESULTS: Matching on provider removes a "benign" source of treatment variability, leaving unmeasured confounders as potentially the most important determinants of treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Researchers need to articulate the presumed source of pseudorandom variation in observational studies and need to take care not to reduce their effect through unnecessary control.
Copyright © 2013. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Amplification bias; Comparative effectiveness research; Instrumental variables; Matching; Pseudorandomization; Unmeasured confounders; Z-bias

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23849156     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.02.012

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


  9 in total

1.  Instrumental variables as bias amplifiers with general outcome and confounding.

Authors:  P Ding; T J VanderWeele; J M Robins
Journal:  Biometrika       Date:  2017-04-17       Impact factor: 2.445

Review 2.  Use and Interpretation of Propensity Scores in Aging Research: A Guide for Clinical Researchers.

Authors:  Dae Hyun Kim; Carl F Pieper; Ali Ahmed; Cathleen S Colón-Emeric
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2016-08-22       Impact factor: 5.562

3.  Antibiotic Exposure and Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: A Case-Control Study.

Authors:  Daniel B Horton; Frank I Scott; Kevin Haynes; Mary E Putt; Carlos D Rose; James D Lewis; Brian L Strom
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2015-07-20       Impact factor: 7.124

4.  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

5.  Propensity Scores in Pharmacoepidemiology: Beyond the Horizon.

Authors:  John W Jackson; Ian Schmid; Elizabeth A Stuart
Journal:  Curr Epidemiol Rep       Date:  2017-11-06

6.  Visualizing Anomalies in Electronic Health Record Data: The Variability Explorer Tool.

Authors:  Hossein Estiri; Ya-Fen Chan; Laura-Mae Baldwin; Hyunggu Jung; Allison Cole; Kari A Stephens
Journal:  AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc       Date:  2015-03-25

7.  Antihyperglycaemic treatment patterns, observed glycaemic control and determinants of treatment change among patients with type 2 diabetes in the United Kingdom primary care: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Andrew Maguire; Beth D Mitchell; Javier Cid Ruzafa
Journal:  BMC Endocr Disord       Date:  2014-08-27       Impact factor: 2.763

8.  Association between statins and infections among patients with diabetes: a cohort and prescription sequence symmetry analysis.

Authors:  Koen B Pouwels; Niken N Widyakusuma; Jens H J Bos; Eelko Hak
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2016-06-30       Impact factor: 2.890

9.  DQe-v: A Database-Agnostic Framework for Exploring Variability in Electronic Health Record Data Across Time and Site Location.

Authors:  Hossein Estiri; Kari Stephens
Journal:  EGEMS (Wash DC)       Date:  2017-05-10
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.