Literature DB >> 25580226

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

Eric G Smith1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Nonrandomized studies typically cannot account for confounding from unmeasured factors.
METHOD: A method is presented that exploits the recently-identified phenomenon of  "confounding amplification" to produce, in principle, a quantitative estimate of total residual confounding resulting from both measured and unmeasured factors.  Two nested propensity score models are constructed that differ only in the deliberate introduction of an additional variable(s) that substantially predicts treatment exposure.  Residual confounding is then estimated by dividing the change in treatment effect estimate between models by the degree of confounding amplification estimated to occur, adjusting for any association between the additional variable(s) and outcome.
RESULTS: Several hypothetical examples are provided to illustrate how the method produces a quantitative estimate of residual confounding if the method's requirements and assumptions are met.  Previously published data is used to illustrate that, whether or not the method routinely provides precise quantitative estimates of residual confounding, the method appears to produce a valuable qualitative estimate of the likely direction and general size of residual confounding. LIMITATIONS: Uncertainties exist, including identifying the best approaches for: 1) predicting the amount of confounding amplification, 2) minimizing changes between the nested models unrelated to confounding amplification, 3) adjusting for the association of the introduced variable(s) with outcome, and 4) deriving confidence intervals for the method's estimates (although bootstrapping is one plausible approach).
CONCLUSIONS: To this author's knowledge, it has not been previously suggested that the phenomenon of confounding amplification, if such amplification is as predictable as suggested by a recent simulation, provides a logical basis for estimating total residual confounding. The method's basic approach is straightforward.  The method's routine usefulness, however, has not yet been established, nor has the method been fully validated. Rapid further investigation of this novel method is clearly indicated, given the potential value of its quantitative or qualitative output.

Entities:  

Keywords:  bias amplification; confounding amplification; intervention research; nonrandomized study; observational study; propensity scores; residual confounding; unmeasured confounding

Year:  2014        PMID: 25580226      PMCID: PMC4288424          DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.4801.2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  F1000Res        ISSN: 2046-1402


  16 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.  Variable selection for propensity score models.

Authors:  M Alan Brookhart; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Kenneth J Rothman; Robert J Glynn; Jerry Avorn; Til Stürmer
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2006-04-19       Impact factor: 4.897

4.  Increasing levels of restriction in pharmacoepidemiologic database studies of elderly and comparison with randomized trial results.

Authors:  Sebastian Schneeweiss; Amanda R Patrick; Til Stürmer; M Alan Brookhart; Jerry Avorn; Malcolm Maclure; Kenneth J Rothman; Robert J Glynn
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  A comparison of the empirical performance of methods for a risk identification system.

Authors:  Patrick B Ryan; Paul E Stang; J Marc Overhage; Marc A Suchard; Abraham G Hartzema; William DuMouchel; Christian G Reich; Martijn J Schuemie; David Madigan
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 5.606

6.  Confounding adjustment via a semi-automated high-dimensional propensity score algorithm: an application to electronic medical records.

Authors:  Sengwee Toh; Luis A García Rodríguez; Miguel A Hernán
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2011-06-30       Impact factor: 2.890

7.  Spurious effects from an extraneous variable.

Authors:  I D Bross
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1966-06

8.  Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures.

Authors:  Ewout W Steyerberg; Andrew J Vickers; Nancy R Cook; Thomas Gerds; Mithat Gonen; Nancy Obuchowski; Michael J Pencina; Michael W Kattan
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 4.822

Review 9.  Efficacy and safety of statin monotherapy in older adults: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Caroline G P Roberts; Eliseo Guallar; Annabelle Rodriguez
Journal:  J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 6.053

10.  High-dimensional propensity score adjustment in studies of treatment effects using health care claims data.

Authors:  Sebastian Schneeweiss; Jeremy A Rassen; Robert J Glynn; Jerry Avorn; Helen Mogun; M Alan Brookhart
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 4.822

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.