Adjusting for Confounders in Outcome Studies Using the Korea National Health Insurance Claim Database: A Review of Methods and Applications.

IF 2.8 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Seung Jin Han, Kyoung Hoon Kim
{"title":"Adjusting for Confounders in Outcome Studies Using the Korea National Health Insurance Claim Database: A Review of Methods and Applications.","authors":"Seung Jin Han, Kyoung Hoon Kim","doi":"10.3961/jpmph.23.250","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Adjusting for potential confounders is crucial for producing valuable evidence in outcome studies. Although numerous studies have been published using the Korea National Health Insurance Claim Database, no study has critically reviewed the methods used to adjust for confounders. This study aimed to review these studies and suggest methods and applications to adjust for confounders.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a literature search of electronic databases, including PubMed and Embase, from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022. In total, 278 studies were retrieved. Eligibility criteria were published in English and outcome studies. A literature search and article screening were independently performed by 2 authors and finally, 173 of 278 studies were included.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-nine studies used matching at the study design stage, and 171 adjusted for confounders using regression analysis or propensity scores at the analysis stage. Of these, 125 conducted regression analyses based on the study questions. Propensity score matching was the most common method involving propensity scores. A total of 171 studies included age and/or sex as confounders. Comorbidities and healthcare utilization, including medications and procedures, were used as confounders in 146 and 82 studies, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This is the first review to address the methods and applications used to adjust for confounders in recently published studies. Our results indicate that all studies adjusted for confounders with appropriate study designs and statistical methodologies; however, a thorough understanding and careful application of confounding variables are required to avoid erroneous results.</p>","PeriodicalId":16893,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health","volume":" ","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10861329/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3961/jpmph.23.250","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Adjusting for potential confounders is crucial for producing valuable evidence in outcome studies. Although numerous studies have been published using the Korea National Health Insurance Claim Database, no study has critically reviewed the methods used to adjust for confounders. This study aimed to review these studies and suggest methods and applications to adjust for confounders.

Methods: We conducted a literature search of electronic databases, including PubMed and Embase, from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022. In total, 278 studies were retrieved. Eligibility criteria were published in English and outcome studies. A literature search and article screening were independently performed by 2 authors and finally, 173 of 278 studies were included.

Results: Thirty-nine studies used matching at the study design stage, and 171 adjusted for confounders using regression analysis or propensity scores at the analysis stage. Of these, 125 conducted regression analyses based on the study questions. Propensity score matching was the most common method involving propensity scores. A total of 171 studies included age and/or sex as confounders. Comorbidities and healthcare utilization, including medications and procedures, were used as confounders in 146 and 82 studies, respectively.

Conclusions: This is the first review to address the methods and applications used to adjust for confounders in recently published studies. Our results indicate that all studies adjusted for confounders with appropriate study designs and statistical methodologies; however, a thorough understanding and careful application of confounding variables are required to avoid erroneous results.

使用韩国国家健康保险索赔数据库调整结果研究中的混杂因素:方法和应用综述
目的:调整潜在的混杂因素对于在结果研究中产生有价值的证据至关重要。尽管利用韩国国家健康保险索赔数据库发表了许多研究,但没有一项研究对用于调整混杂因素的方法进行了严格审查。本研究旨在回顾这些研究,并提出调整混杂因素的方法和应用。方法:检索PubMed、Embase等电子数据库,检索时间为2021年1月1日至2022年12月31日。总共有278项研究被检索到。入选标准在英语和结果研究中公布。2位作者独立进行文献检索和文章筛选,最终纳入278项研究中的173项。结果:39项研究在研究设计阶段使用匹配,171项研究在分析阶段使用回归分析或倾向评分来调整混杂因素。其中,125家进行了基于研究问题的回归分析。倾向分数匹配是涉及倾向分数的最常见方法。共有171项研究将年龄和/或性别作为混杂因素。合并症和医疗保健利用(包括药物和程序)分别在146项和82项研究中被用作混杂因素。结论:这是首次对最近发表的研究中用于调整混杂因素的方法和应用进行综述。我们的结果表明,所有的研究都通过适当的研究设计和统计方法调整了混杂因素;然而,为了避免错误的结果,需要彻底理解和仔细应用混淆变量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health
Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
60
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信