A Quantitative Bias Analysis Approach to Informative Presence Bias in Electronic Health Records.
Journal
Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)
ISSN: 1531-5487
Titre abrégé: Epidemiology
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9009644
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 May 2024
01 May 2024
Historique:
pmc-release:
01
05
2025
medline:
18
4
2024
pubmed:
17
4
2024
entrez:
17
4
2024
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Accurate outcome and exposure ascertainment in electronic health record (EHR) data, referred to as EHR phenotyping, relies on the completeness and accuracy of EHR data for each individual. However, some individuals, such as those with a greater comorbidity burden, visit the health care system more frequently and thus have more complete data, compared with others. Ignoring such dependence of exposure and outcome misclassification on visit frequency can bias estimates of associations in EHR analysis. We developed a framework for describing the structure of outcome and exposure misclassification due to informative visit processes in EHR data and assessed the utility of a quantitative bias analysis approach to adjusting for bias induced by informative visit patterns. Using simulations, we found that this method produced unbiased estimates across all informative visit structures, if the phenotype sensitivity and specificity were correctly specified. We applied this method in an example where the association between diabetes and progression-free survival in metastatic breast cancer patients may be subject to informative presence bias. The quantitative bias analysis approach allowed us to evaluate robustness of results to informative presence bias and indicated that findings were unlikely to change across a range of plausible values for phenotype sensitivity and specificity. Researchers using EHR data should carefully consider the informative visit structure reflected in their data and use appropriate approaches such as the quantitative bias analysis approach described here to evaluate robustness of study findings.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38630509
doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001714
pii: 00001648-202405000-00010
pmc: PMC11027938
mid: NIHMS1958536
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
349-358Subventions
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : R21 AG075574
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Disclosures: A.C. has received institutional research support from Lilly and Honoraia from Siemens. R.H. has received funding from Merck. The other author has report no conflicts of interest.
Références
Stat Med. 2018 Dec 20;37(29):4457-4471
pubmed: 30112825
J Am Stat Assoc. 2007;102(479):952-967
pubmed: 18392118
Am J Epidemiol. 2016 Dec 1;184(11):847-855
pubmed: 27852603
Epidemiology. 2022 Jan 1;33(1):105-113
pubmed: 34711733
Am J Epidemiol. 2010 Jan 15;171(2):189-97
pubmed: 20007201
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2022 Aug 18;107(9):2511-2521
pubmed: 35766387
Biometrics. 2008 Sep;64(3):950-958
pubmed: 18162110
Am J Epidemiol. 2009 Oct 15;170(8):959-62; discussion 963-4
pubmed: 19755635
BMC Health Serv Res. 2006 Jul 04;6:84
pubmed: 16820048
Epidemiology. 2018 May;29(3):356-363
pubmed: 29283893
Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Oct 14;12:1095-1111
pubmed: 33116903
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2014 Jun 11;14:51
pubmed: 24916006
Am J Manag Care. 2018 Jan 1;24(1):e24-e29
pubmed: 29350512
J Palliat Med. 2011 Jun;14(6):751-6
pubmed: 21548813
Stat Med. 2010 Sep 30;29(22):2297-309
pubmed: 20552681
Adv Ther. 2019 Aug;36(8):2122-2136
pubmed: 31140124
Biostatistics. 2006 Jul;7(3):469-85
pubmed: 16428260
Lancet Digit Health. 2022 Dec;4(12):e893-e898
pubmed: 36154811
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2018 May;103(5):899-905
pubmed: 28865143
Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2013 Dec;21(12):1267-76
pubmed: 24206938
Health Serv Res. 2021 Dec;56(6):1281-1287
pubmed: 33998685
Med Care. 2002 Sep;40(9):761-70
pubmed: 12218767