Bias Reduction Methods for Propensity Scores Estimated from Error-Prone EHR-Derived Covariates.
Journal
Health services & outcomes research methodology
ISSN: 1387-3741
Titre abrégé: Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9815809
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2021
Jun 2021
Historique:
entrez:
21
6
2021
pubmed:
22
6
2021
medline:
22
6
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
As the use of electronic health records (EHR) to estimate treatment effects has become widespread, concern about bias introduced by error in EHR-derived covariates has also grown. While methods exist to address measurement error in individual covariates, little prior research has investigated the implications of using propensity scores for confounder control when the propensity scores are constructed from a combination of accurate and error-prone covariates. We reviewed approaches to account for error in propensity scores and used simulation studies to compare their performance. These comparisons were conducted across a range of scenarios featuring variation in outcome type, validation sample size, main sample size, strength of confounding, and structure of the error in the mismeasured covariate. We then applied these approaches to a real-world EHR-based comparative effectiveness study of alternative treatments for metastatic bladder cancer. This head-to-head comparison of measurement error correction methods in the context of a propensity score-adjusted analysis demonstrated that multiple imputation for propensity scores performs best when the outcome is continuous and regression calibration-based methods perform best when the outcome is binary.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34149306
doi: 10.1007/s10742-020-00219-3
pmc: PMC8210692
mid: NIHMS1628009
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
169-187Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : K23 CA187185
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R21 CA227613
Pays : United States
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
10Declaration of conflicting interests Dr. Mamtani reports having served as a consultant for Seattle genetics / Astellas. The author(s) declared no other potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Références
Stat Med. 2001 Jan 15;20(1):139-160
pubmed: 11135353
Future Oncol. 2016 May;12(10):1261-74
pubmed: 27096309
Med Care. 2013 Aug;51(8 Suppl 3):S30-7
pubmed: 23774517
Int J Epidemiol. 2006 Aug;35(4):1074-81
pubmed: 16709616
Stat Med. 2008 Dec 30;27(30):6332-50
pubmed: 18937275
Am J Epidemiol. 2007 May 15;165(10):1110-8
pubmed: 17395595
Epidemiology. 2018 May;29(3):356-363
pubmed: 29283893
Health Serv Res. 2018 Dec;53(6):4460-4476
pubmed: 29756355
Am J Epidemiol. 2019 Jan 1;188(1):222-230
pubmed: 30358801
J Oncol Pract. 2017 Aug;13(8):530-534
pubmed: 28745935
Epidemiology. 2012 Jan;23(1):165-74
pubmed: 22157312
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2018 May;103(5):899-905
pubmed: 28865143
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2018 Feb;103(2):202-205
pubmed: 29214638
Am J Epidemiol. 2005 Aug 1;162(3):279-89
pubmed: 15987725
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013 Jan 1;20(1):144-51
pubmed: 22733976
JAMA. 2018 Aug 7;320(5):469-477
pubmed: 30088010
Am J Epidemiol. 1990 Oct;132(4):734-45
pubmed: 2403114
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2014 Jun 11;14:51
pubmed: 24916006
Stat Methods Med Res. 2017 Aug;26(4):1824-1837
pubmed: 26037527
Med Care. 1998 Jan;36(1):8-27
pubmed: 9431328
Stat Med. 2008 Nov 10;27(25):5195-216
pubmed: 18680172
Am J Epidemiol. 2014 Aug 1;180(3):308-17
pubmed: 24966224