Literature DB >> 25667819

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

Richard Wyss1, Alan R Ellis2, Mark Lunt3, M Alan Brookhart1, Robert J Glynn4, Til Stürmer1.   

Abstract

Theory and simulations show that variables affecting the outcome only through exposure, known as instrumental variables (IVs), should be excluded from propensity score (PS) models. In pharmacoepidemiologic studies based on automated healthcare databases, researchers will sometimes use a single PS model to control for confounding when evaluating the effect of a treatment on multiple outcomes. Because these "full" models are not constructed with a specific outcome in mind, they will usually contain a large number of IVs for any individual study or outcome. If researchers subsequently decide to evaluate a subset of the outcomes in more detail, they can construct reduced "outcome-specific" models that exclude IVs for the particular study. Accurate estimates of PSs that do not condition on IVs, however, can be compromised when simply excluding instruments from the full PS model. This misspecification may have a negligible impact on effect estimates in many settings, but is likely to be more pronounced for situations where instruments modify the effects of covariates on treatment (instrument-confounder interactions). In studies evaluating drugs during early dissemination, the effects of covariates on treatment are likely modified over calendar time and IV-confounder interaction effects on treatment are likely to exist. In these settings, refitting more flexible PS models after excluding IVs and IV-confounder interactions can work well. The authors propose an alternative method based on the concept of marginalization that can be used to remove the negative effects of controlling for IVs and IV-confounder interactions without having to refit the full PS model. This method fits the full PS model, including IVs and IV-confounder interactions, but marginalizes over values of the instruments. Fitting more flexible PS models after excluding IVs or using the full model to marginalize over IVs can prevent model misspecification along with the negative effects of balancing instruments in certain settings.

Entities:  

Year:  2014        PMID: 25667819      PMCID: PMC4319188          DOI: 10.1515/em-2013-0012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Epidemiol Methods        ISSN: 2161-962X


  37 in total

1.  Data, design, and background knowledge in etiologic inference.

Authors:  J M Robins
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 4.822

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.  An application of propensity score matching using claims data.

Authors:  John D Seeger; Paige L Williams; Alexander M Walker
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 2.890

Review 4.  Indications for propensity scores and review of their use in pharmacoepidemiology.

Authors:  Robert J Glynn; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Til Stürmer
Journal:  Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 4.080

5.  Calendar time-specific propensity score analysis for observational data: a case study estimating the effectiveness of inhaled long-acting beta-agonist on asthma exacerbations.

Authors:  Piyemeth Dilokthornsakul; Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk; Glen T Schumock; Todd A Lee
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2013-10-22       Impact factor: 2.890

6.  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

7.  Variable selection for propensity score models when estimating treatment effects on multiple outcomes: a simulation study.

Authors:  Richard Wyss; Cynthia J Girman; Robert J LoCasale; Alan M Brookhart; Til Stürmer
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2012-10-16       Impact factor: 2.890

8.  A basic study design for expedited safety signal evaluation based on electronic healthcare data.

Authors:  Sebastian Schneeweiss
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 2.890

9.  Propensity score techniques and the assessment of measured covariate balance to test causal associations in psychological research.

Authors:  Valerie S Harder; Elizabeth A Stuart; James C Anthony
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2010-09

Review 10.  National, regional, and global trends in fasting plasma glucose and diabetes prevalence since 1980: systematic analysis of health examination surveys and epidemiological studies with 370 country-years and 2·7 million participants.

Authors:  Goodarz Danaei; Mariel M Finucane; Yuan Lu; Gitanjali M Singh; Melanie J Cowan; Christopher J Paciorek; John K Lin; Farshad Farzadfar; Young-Ho Khang; Gretchen A Stevens; Mayuree Rao; Mohammed K Ali; Leanne M Riley; Carolyn A Robinson; Majid Ezzati
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2011-06-24       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  1 in total

1.  Propensity Scores in Pharmacoepidemiology: Beyond the Horizon.

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

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.