scispace - formally typeset
Open AccessJournal ArticleDOI

Propensity Score Methods for Confounding Control in Nonexperimental Research

Reads0
Chats0
TLDR
Nonexperimental studies are increasingly used to investigate the safety and effectiveness of medical products as they are used in routine care, and confounding, systematic differences in prognosis between patients exposed to an intervention of interest and the selected comparator group is a primary challenge.
Abstract
Nonexperimental studies are increasingly used to investigate the safety and effectiveness of medical products as they are used in routine care. One of the primary challenges of such studies is confounding, systematic differences in prognosis between patients exposed to an intervention of interest and the selected comparator group. In the presence of uncontrolled confounding, any observed difference in outcome risk between the groups cannot be attributed solely to a causal effect of the exposure on the outcome. Confounding in studies of medical products can arise from a variety of different sociomedical processes.1 The most common form of confounding arises from good medical practice, physicians prescribing medications and performing procedures on patients who are most likely to benefit from them. This leads to a bias known as confounding by indication, which can cause medical interventions to appear to cause events that they prevent.2,3 Conversely, patients who are perceived by a physician to be near the end of life may be less likely to receive preventive medications, leading to confounding by frailty or comorbidity.4–6 Additional sources of confounding bias can result from patients’ health-related behaviors. For example, patients who initiate a preventive medication may be more likely than other patients to engage in other healthy, prevention-oriented behaviors leading to bias known as the healthy user/adherer effect.7–9 Many statistical approaches can be used to remove the confounding effects of such factors if they are captured in the data. The most common statistical approaches for confounding control are based on multivariable regression models of the outcome. To yield unbiased estimates of treatment effects, these approaches require that the researcher correctly models the effect of the treatment and covariates on the outcome. However, correct specification of an outcome model can be challenging, particularly in studies …

read more

Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

Role of Postoperative Anticoagulation in Predicting Digit Replantation and Revascularization Failure: A Propensity-matched Cohort Study.

TL;DR: Among DRR patients with similar predisposing characteristics for postoperative therapeutic heparin or dextran, the use of therapeutic anticoagulation does not have a protective effect against digit failure.
Journal ArticleDOI

A Review of Disease Risk Scores and Their Application in Pharmacoepidemiology

TL;DR: Differences between the PS and the DRS are discussed as well as the benefits and challenges of using the D RS for confounding control and areas for future research and development for the application of risk scores in pharmacoepidemiology and nonexperimental medical studies are discussed.
Journal ArticleDOI

Risk of pregnancy loss in patients exposed to mycophenolate compared to azathioprine: A retrospective cohort study.

TL;DR: To evaluate the relative risk of pregnancy loss associated with mycophenolate (MPA) vs azathioprine (AZA) use, a comparison of the use of these drugs over a 12-month period was conducted.
Journal ArticleDOI

Comparative Adherence Trajectories of Oral Fingolimod and Injectable Disease Modifying Agents in Multiple Sclerosis

TL;DR: Oral DMA fingolimod was associated with better adherence than injectable DMAs across group-based trajectories and further research is warranted to evaluate the adherence trajectories with newer oral DMAs introduced in the last decade for MS.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects

Paul R. Rosenbaum, +1 more
- 01 Apr 1983 - 
TL;DR: The authors discusses the central role of propensity scores and balancing scores in the analysis of observational studies and shows that adjustment for the scalar propensity score is sufficient to remove bias due to all observed covariates.
Journal ArticleDOI

Marginal Structural Models and Causal Inference in Epidemiology

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors introduce marginal structural models, a new class of causal models that allow for improved adjustment of confounding in observational studies with exposures or treatments that vary over time, when there exist time-dependent confounders that are also affected by previous treatment.
Journal ArticleDOI

Causal diagrams for epidemiologic research.

TL;DR: Causal diagrams can provide a starting point for identifying variables that must be measured and controlled to obtain unconfounded effect estimates and provide a method for critical evaluation of traditional epidemiologic criteria for confounding.
Journal ArticleDOI

Estimating Causal Effects from Large Data Sets Using Propensity Scores

TL;DR: Propensity score methods generalize subclassification in the presence of many confounding covariates, such as age, region of the country, and sex, in a study of smoking and mortality.
Journal ArticleDOI

A structural approach to selection bias.

TL;DR: This work argues that the causal structure underlying the bias in each example is essentially the same: conditioning on a common effect of 2 variables, one of which is either exposure or a cause of exposure and the other is either the outcome or acause of the outcome.
Related Papers (5)
Trending Questions (2)
How to control confounding effect in event study?

Propensity Score Methods, such as PS matching, IPTW, and SMRW, are effective for controlling confounding effects in event studies by adjusting for potential confounding factors.