Tibor Schuster1,2, Menglan Pang2, Robert W Platt1,3. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 2. Centre for Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 3. Department of Pediatrics, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The high-dimensional propensity score algorithm attempts to improve control of confounding in typical treatment effect studies in pharmacoepidemiology and is increasingly being used for the analysis of large administrative databases. Within this multi-step variable selection algorithm, the marginal prevalence of non-zero covariate values is considered to be an indicator for a count variable's potential confounding impact. We investigate the role of the marginal prevalence of confounder variables on potentially caused bias magnitudes when estimating risk ratios in point exposure studies with binary outcomes. METHODS: We apply the law of total probability in conjunction with an established bias formula to derive and illustrate relative bias boundaries with respect to marginal confounder prevalence. RESULTS: We show that maximum possible bias magnitudes can occur at any marginal prevalence level of a binary confounder variable. In particular, we demonstrate that, in case of rare or very common exposures, low and high prevalent confounder variables can still have large confounding impact on estimated risk ratios. CONCLUSIONS: Covariate pre-selection by prevalence may lead to sub-optimal confounder sampling within the high-dimensional propensity score algorithm. While we believe that the high-dimensional propensity score has important benefits in large-scale pharmacoepidemiologic studies, we recommend omitting the prevalence-based empirical identification of candidate covariates.
PURPOSE: The high-dimensional propensity score algorithm attempts to improve control of confounding in typical treatment effect studies in pharmacoepidemiology and is increasingly being used for the analysis of large administrative databases. Within this multi-step variable selection algorithm, the marginal prevalence of non-zero covariate values is considered to be an indicator for a count variable's potential confounding impact. We investigate the role of the marginal prevalence of confounder variables on potentially caused bias magnitudes when estimating risk ratios in point exposure studies with binary outcomes. METHODS: We apply the law of total probability in conjunction with an established bias formula to derive and illustrate relative bias boundaries with respect to marginal confounder prevalence. RESULTS: We show that maximum possible bias magnitudes can occur at any marginal prevalence level of a binary confounder variable. In particular, we demonstrate that, in case of rare or very common exposures, low and high prevalent confounder variables can still have large confounding impact on estimated risk ratios. CONCLUSIONS: Covariate pre-selection by prevalence may lead to sub-optimal confounder sampling within the high-dimensional propensity score algorithm. While we believe that the high-dimensional propensity score has important benefits in large-scale pharmacoepidemiologic studies, we recommend omitting the prevalence-based empirical identification of candidate covariates.
Authors: Romain Neugebauer; Julie A Schmittdiel; Zheng Zhu; Jeremy A Rassen; John D Seeger; Sebastian Schneeweiss Journal: Stat Med Date: 2014-12-08 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: Jennifer M Polinski; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Robert J Glynn; Joyce Lii; Jeremy A Rassen Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Samy Suissa; David Henry; Patricia Caetano; Colin R Dormuth; Pierre Ernst; Brenda Hemmelgarn; Jacques Lelorier; Adrian Levy; Patricia J Martens; J Michael Paterson; Robert W Platt; Ingrid Sketris; Gary Teare Journal: Open Med Date: 2012-10-30
Authors: Ingrid S Sketris; Nancy Carter; Robyn L Traynor; Dorian Watts; Kim Kelly Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2019-02-20 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: John Tazare; Richard Wyss; Jessica M Franklin; Liam Smeeth; Stephen J W Evans; Shirley V Wang; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Ian J Douglas; Joshua J Gagne; Elizabeth J Williamson Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2022-02-12 Impact factor: 2.732
Authors: Imane Benasseur; Denis Talbot; Madeleine Durand; Anne Holbrook; Alexis Matteau; Brian J Potter; Christel Renoux; Mireille E Schnitzer; Jean-Éric Tarride; Jason R Guertin Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2022-01-07 Impact factor: 2.732