Literature DB >> 25866189

On the role of marginal confounder prevalence - implications for the high-dimensional propensity score algorithm.

Tibor Schuster1,2, Menglan Pang2, Robert W Platt1,3.   

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.
Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords:  bias formula; confounder prevalence; high-dimensional propensity score; pharmacoepidemiology; risk ratio

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25866189      PMCID: PMC5072887          DOI: 10.1002/pds.3773

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


  12 in total

1.  High-dimensional versus conventional propensity scores in a comparative effectiveness study of coxibs and reduced upper gastrointestinal complications.

Authors:  E Garbe; S Kloss; M Suling; I Pigeot; S Schneeweiss
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2012-07-05       Impact factor: 2.953

2.  Indirect assessment of confounding: graphic description and limits on effect of adjusting for covariates.

Authors:  W D Flanders; M J Khoury
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  1990-05       Impact factor: 4.822

3.  Bias formulas for external adjustment and sensitivity analysis of unmeasured confounders.

Authors:  Onyebuchi A Arah; Yasutaka Chiba; Sander Greenland
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 3.797

4.  High-dimensional propensity score algorithm in comparative effectiveness research with time-varying interventions.

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

5.  Bias formulas for sensitivity analysis of unmeasured confounding for general outcomes, treatments, and confounders.

Authors:  Tyler J Vanderweele; Onyebuchi A Arah
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 4.822

6.  Assessing effects of confounding variables.

Authors:  J J Schlesselman
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1978-07       Impact factor: 4.897

7.  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

8.  Spurious effects from an extraneous variable.

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

9.  Confronting "confounding by health system use" in Medicare Part D: comparative effectiveness of propensity score approaches to confounding adjustment.

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

10.  CNODES: the Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies.

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
View more
  6 in total

1.  Building a framework for the evaluation of knowledge translation for the Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies.

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

2.  Reported evidence on the effectiveness of mass media interventions in increasing knowledge and use of family planning in low and middle-income countries: a systematic mixed methods review.

Authors:  Jacqueline Safieh; Tibor Schuster; Britt McKinnon; Amy Booth; Yves Bergevin
Journal:  J Glob Health       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 4.413

3.  Transparency of high-dimensional propensity score analyses: Guidance for diagnostics and reporting.

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

4.  Propensity Scores in Pharmacoepidemiology: Beyond the Horizon.

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

Review 5.  Automated data-adaptive analytics for electronic healthcare data to study causal treatment effects.

Authors:  Sebastian Schneeweiss
Journal:  Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2018-07-06       Impact factor: 4.790

6.  A comparison of confounder selection and adjustment methods for estimating causal effects using large healthcare databases.

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

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.