Jonathan Izudi, Adithya Cattamanchi, Francis Bajunirwe
{"title":"因果推理方法评估错过门诊对乌干达农村结核病患者治疗成功率的影响。","authors":"Jonathan Izudi, Adithya Cattamanchi, Francis Bajunirwe","doi":"10.1186/s12874-025-02553-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although randomized controlled trials are the gold standard design for cause-effect analysis, high costs and challenges around practicability, feasibility, and ethics may limit their use. In such situations, causal inference methods can improve the rigor of cause-effect analysis using observational data but such methods have infrequently been applied in tuberculosis (TB) research. We conducted a parallel comparison across three causal inference methods in order to assess the causal association between missed clinic visit/s and treatment success among people with drug-susceptible bacteriologically confirmed pulmonary TB.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used causal inference methods to analyze cross-sectional data of adults with drug-susceptible bacteriologically confirmed pulmonary TB at clinics in rural eastern Uganda. We compared effect estimates from three causal inference methods, namely instrumental variable analysis, propensity-score analysis (adjustment, matching, weighting, and stratification), and double-robust estimation for cause-effect analysis. The exposure was missing a TB clinic visit/s and the outcome was treatment success defined as cure or treatment completion, both measured on a binary scale. Covariates were selected based on the literature, and their social and biological relevance to the outcome. We report the odds ratio and 95% confidence interval from each causal analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 762 participants (mean age of 39.3 ± 15.8 years) included, 186 (24.4%) had missed a clinic visit/s while 687 (90.2%) were successfully treated for TB. Missed clinic visit/s lowered treatment success across all analyses with instrumental variable analysis (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.20-0.82), propensity-score analysis (adjustment [OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30-0.82], matching [OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21-0.91)], weighting [OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.30-0.91], and stratification [OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.19-0.62]), and double-robust estimation (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28-0.85).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Missed clinic visit/s reduced the likelihood of TB treatment success rate across all causal inference methods, supporting a causal relationship. Studies are needed to examine interventions that enhance retention in TB treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":"25 1","pages":"104"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12004605/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Causal inference methodologies to assess the effect of missed clinic visits on treatment success rate among people with tuberculosis in rural Uganda.\",\"authors\":\"Jonathan Izudi, Adithya Cattamanchi, Francis Bajunirwe\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12874-025-02553-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although randomized controlled trials are the gold standard design for cause-effect analysis, high costs and challenges around practicability, feasibility, and ethics may limit their use. In such situations, causal inference methods can improve the rigor of cause-effect analysis using observational data but such methods have infrequently been applied in tuberculosis (TB) research. We conducted a parallel comparison across three causal inference methods in order to assess the causal association between missed clinic visit/s and treatment success among people with drug-susceptible bacteriologically confirmed pulmonary TB.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used causal inference methods to analyze cross-sectional data of adults with drug-susceptible bacteriologically confirmed pulmonary TB at clinics in rural eastern Uganda. We compared effect estimates from three causal inference methods, namely instrumental variable analysis, propensity-score analysis (adjustment, matching, weighting, and stratification), and double-robust estimation for cause-effect analysis. The exposure was missing a TB clinic visit/s and the outcome was treatment success defined as cure or treatment completion, both measured on a binary scale. Covariates were selected based on the literature, and their social and biological relevance to the outcome. We report the odds ratio and 95% confidence interval from each causal analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 762 participants (mean age of 39.3 ± 15.8 years) included, 186 (24.4%) had missed a clinic visit/s while 687 (90.2%) were successfully treated for TB. Missed clinic visit/s lowered treatment success across all analyses with instrumental variable analysis (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.20-0.82), propensity-score analysis (adjustment [OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30-0.82], matching [OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21-0.91)], weighting [OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.30-0.91], and stratification [OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.19-0.62]), and double-robust estimation (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28-0.85).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Missed clinic visit/s reduced the likelihood of TB treatment success rate across all causal inference methods, supporting a causal relationship. Studies are needed to examine interventions that enhance retention in TB treatment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9114,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Medical Research Methodology\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"104\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12004605/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Medical Research Methodology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-025-02553-x\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-025-02553-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:虽然随机对照试验是因果分析的黄金标准设计,但高成本和实用性、可行性和伦理方面的挑战可能限制其使用。在这种情况下,因果推理方法可以利用观测数据提高因果分析的严谨性,但这种方法很少应用于结核病研究。我们对三种因果推断方法进行了平行比较,以评估药物敏感细菌学确诊肺结核患者错过门诊次数与治疗成功之间的因果关系。方法:我们使用因果推理方法分析乌干达东部农村诊所药物敏感细菌学确诊肺结核成人的横断面数据。我们比较了三种因果推断方法的效果估计,即工具变量分析、倾向得分分析(调整、匹配、加权和分层)和因果分析的双稳健估计。暴露是指错过一次结核病门诊就诊/秒,结果是治疗成功,定义为治愈或治疗完成,两者均以二元量表衡量。协变量是根据文献及其与结果的社会和生物学相关性来选择的。我们报告了每个因果分析的比值比和95%置信区间。结果:纳入的762名参与者(平均年龄39.3±15.8岁)中,186名(24.4%)患者错过门诊/s, 687名(90.2%)患者成功治疗。通过工具变量分析(OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.20-0.82)、倾向评分分析(调整[OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30-0.82]、匹配[OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21-0.91)]、加权[OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.30-0.91]、分层[OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.19-0.62])和双稳健估计(OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28-0.85),错过门诊就诊/s降低了治疗成功率。结论:在所有因果推理方法中,错过门诊次数降低了结核病治疗成功率的可能性,支持因果关系。需要进行研究,以检验提高结核病治疗坚持度的干预措施。
Causal inference methodologies to assess the effect of missed clinic visits on treatment success rate among people with tuberculosis in rural Uganda.
Background: Although randomized controlled trials are the gold standard design for cause-effect analysis, high costs and challenges around practicability, feasibility, and ethics may limit their use. In such situations, causal inference methods can improve the rigor of cause-effect analysis using observational data but such methods have infrequently been applied in tuberculosis (TB) research. We conducted a parallel comparison across three causal inference methods in order to assess the causal association between missed clinic visit/s and treatment success among people with drug-susceptible bacteriologically confirmed pulmonary TB.
Methods: We used causal inference methods to analyze cross-sectional data of adults with drug-susceptible bacteriologically confirmed pulmonary TB at clinics in rural eastern Uganda. We compared effect estimates from three causal inference methods, namely instrumental variable analysis, propensity-score analysis (adjustment, matching, weighting, and stratification), and double-robust estimation for cause-effect analysis. The exposure was missing a TB clinic visit/s and the outcome was treatment success defined as cure or treatment completion, both measured on a binary scale. Covariates were selected based on the literature, and their social and biological relevance to the outcome. We report the odds ratio and 95% confidence interval from each causal analysis.
Results: Of 762 participants (mean age of 39.3 ± 15.8 years) included, 186 (24.4%) had missed a clinic visit/s while 687 (90.2%) were successfully treated for TB. Missed clinic visit/s lowered treatment success across all analyses with instrumental variable analysis (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.20-0.82), propensity-score analysis (adjustment [OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30-0.82], matching [OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21-0.91)], weighting [OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.30-0.91], and stratification [OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.19-0.62]), and double-robust estimation (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28-0.85).
Conclusions: Missed clinic visit/s reduced the likelihood of TB treatment success rate across all causal inference methods, supporting a causal relationship. Studies are needed to examine interventions that enhance retention in TB treatment.
期刊介绍:
BMC Medical Research Methodology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in methodological approaches to healthcare research. Articles on the methodology of epidemiological research, clinical trials and meta-analysis/systematic review are particularly encouraged, as are empirical studies of the associations between choice of methodology and study outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology does not aim to publish articles describing scientific methods or techniques: these should be directed to the BMC journal covering the relevant biomedical subject area.