当使用工具变量方法比较两种治疗,但有两种以上的治疗可用时,选择偏差。

IF 1 4区 数学 Q4 MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY
Ashkan Ertefaie, Dylan Small, James Flory, Sean Hennessy
{"title":"当使用工具变量方法比较两种治疗,但有两种以上的治疗可用时,选择偏差。","authors":"Ashkan Ertefaie,&nbsp;Dylan Small,&nbsp;James Flory,&nbsp;Sean Hennessy","doi":"10.1515/ijb-2015-0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Instrumental variable (IV) methods are widely used to adjust for the bias in estimating treatment effects caused by unmeasured confounders in observational studies. It is common that a comparison between two treatments is focused on and that only subjects receiving one of these two treatments are considered in the analysis even though more than two treatments are available. In this paper, we provide empirical and theoretical evidence that the IV methods may result in biased treatment effects if applied on a data set in which subjects are preselected based on their received treatments. We frame this as a selection bias problem and propose a procedure that identifies the treatment effect of interest as a function of a vector of sensitivity parameters. We also list assumptions under which analyzing the preselected data does not lead to a biased treatment effect estimate. The performance of the proposed method is examined using simulation studies. We applied our method on The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database to estimate the comparative effect of metformin and sulfonylureas on weight gain among diabetic patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":49058,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Biostatistics","volume":"12 1","pages":"219-32"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/ijb-2015-0006","citationCount":"20","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Selection Bias When Using Instrumental Variable Methods to Compare Two Treatments But More Than Two Treatments Are Available.\",\"authors\":\"Ashkan Ertefaie,&nbsp;Dylan Small,&nbsp;James Flory,&nbsp;Sean Hennessy\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/ijb-2015-0006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Instrumental variable (IV) methods are widely used to adjust for the bias in estimating treatment effects caused by unmeasured confounders in observational studies. It is common that a comparison between two treatments is focused on and that only subjects receiving one of these two treatments are considered in the analysis even though more than two treatments are available. In this paper, we provide empirical and theoretical evidence that the IV methods may result in biased treatment effects if applied on a data set in which subjects are preselected based on their received treatments. We frame this as a selection bias problem and propose a procedure that identifies the treatment effect of interest as a function of a vector of sensitivity parameters. We also list assumptions under which analyzing the preselected data does not lead to a biased treatment effect estimate. The performance of the proposed method is examined using simulation studies. We applied our method on The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database to estimate the comparative effect of metformin and sulfonylureas on weight gain among diabetic patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49058,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Biostatistics\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"219-32\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/ijb-2015-0006\",\"citationCount\":\"20\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Biostatistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"100\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijb-2015-0006\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"数学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Biostatistics","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijb-2015-0006","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"数学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

摘要

在观察性研究中,工具变量(IV)方法被广泛用于校正由未测量混杂因素引起的治疗效果估计偏差。通常关注两种治疗方法之间的比较,并且即使有两种以上的治疗方法,也只考虑接受这两种治疗方法中的一种的受试者。在本文中,我们提供了经验和理论证据,表明IV方法如果应用于根据受试者接受的治疗预先选择的数据集,可能会导致偏倚治疗效果。我们将其定义为选择偏差问题,并提出了一个程序,该程序将感兴趣的治疗效果确定为灵敏度参数向量的函数。我们还列出了一些假设,在这些假设下,对预选数据的分析不会导致偏倚的治疗效果估计。通过仿真研究验证了所提方法的性能。我们在健康改善网络(THIN)数据库中应用我们的方法来评估二甲双胍和磺脲类药物对糖尿病患者体重增加的比较效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Selection Bias When Using Instrumental Variable Methods to Compare Two Treatments But More Than Two Treatments Are Available.

Instrumental variable (IV) methods are widely used to adjust for the bias in estimating treatment effects caused by unmeasured confounders in observational studies. It is common that a comparison between two treatments is focused on and that only subjects receiving one of these two treatments are considered in the analysis even though more than two treatments are available. In this paper, we provide empirical and theoretical evidence that the IV methods may result in biased treatment effects if applied on a data set in which subjects are preselected based on their received treatments. We frame this as a selection bias problem and propose a procedure that identifies the treatment effect of interest as a function of a vector of sensitivity parameters. We also list assumptions under which analyzing the preselected data does not lead to a biased treatment effect estimate. The performance of the proposed method is examined using simulation studies. We applied our method on The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database to estimate the comparative effect of metformin and sulfonylureas on weight gain among diabetic patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Biostatistics
International Journal of Biostatistics MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY-STATISTICS & PROBABILITY
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
8.30%
发文量
28
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Biostatistics (IJB) seeks to publish new biostatistical models and methods, new statistical theory, as well as original applications of statistical methods, for important practical problems arising from the biological, medical, public health, and agricultural sciences with an emphasis on semiparametric methods. Given many alternatives to publish exist within biostatistics, IJB offers a place to publish for research in biostatistics focusing on modern methods, often based on machine-learning and other data-adaptive methodologies, as well as providing a unique reading experience that compels the author to be explicit about the statistical inference problem addressed by the paper. IJB is intended that the journal cover the entire range of biostatistics, from theoretical advances to relevant and sensible translations of a practical problem into a statistical framework. Electronic publication also allows for data and software code to be appended, and opens the door for reproducible research allowing readers to easily replicate analyses described in a paper. Both original research and review articles will be warmly received, as will articles applying sound statistical methods to practical problems.
×
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