Bias Reduction Methods for Propensity Scores Estimated from Error-Prone EHR-Derived Covariates.

IF 1.6 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Joanna Harton, Ronac Mamtani, Nandita Mitra, Rebecca A Hubbard
{"title":"Bias Reduction Methods for Propensity Scores Estimated from Error-Prone EHR-Derived Covariates.","authors":"Joanna Harton,&nbsp;Ronac Mamtani,&nbsp;Nandita Mitra,&nbsp;Rebecca A Hubbard","doi":"10.1007/s10742-020-00219-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":45600,"journal":{"name":"Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10742-020-00219-3","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10742-020-00219-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/9/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

从易出错的ehr衍生协变量估计倾向得分的偏倚减少方法。
随着电子健康记录(EHR)用于评估治疗效果的应用越来越广泛,对电子健康记录衍生协变量误差所带来的偏倚的担忧也越来越多。虽然存在解决单个协变量测量误差的方法,但很少有先前的研究调查了当倾向分数由准确和易出错的协变量组合构建时,使用倾向分数进行混杂控制的影响。我们回顾了解释倾向分数误差的方法,并使用模拟研究来比较它们的表现。这些比较是在结果类型、验证样本量、主样本量、混杂强度和错测协变量误差结构等多种情况下进行的。然后,我们将这些方法应用于一项真实世界中基于ehr的转移性膀胱癌替代治疗的比较有效性研究。在倾向分数调整分析的背景下,这种测量误差校正方法的正面比较表明,当结果是连续的时,倾向分数的多重imputation效果最好,而当结果是二元的时,基于回归校准的方法效果最好。
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
Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology
Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
6.70%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The journal reflects the multidisciplinary nature of the field of health services and outcomes research. It addresses the needs of multiple, interlocking communities, including methodologists in statistics, econometrics, social and behavioral sciences; designers and analysts of health policy and health services research projects; and health care providers and policy makers who need to properly understand and evaluate the results of published research. The journal strives to enhance the level of methodologic rigor in health services and outcomes research and contributes to the development of methodologic standards in the field. In pursuing its main objective, the journal also provides a meeting ground for researchers from a number of traditional disciplines and fosters the development of new quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods by statisticians, econometricians, health services researchers, and methodologists in other fields. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology publishes: Research papers on quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods; Case Studies describing applications of quantitative and qualitative methodology in health services and outcomes research; Review Articles synthesizing and popularizing methodologic developments; Tutorials; Articles on computational issues and software reviews; Book reviews; and Notices. Special issues will be devoted to papers presented at important workshops and conferences.
×
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