抗肿瘤坏死因子α使用者患多发性硬化症的风险:基于真实世界数据的观察性研究的方法学回顾。

IF 1.1 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Lingyi Li, Mahyar Etminan, Gilaad G Kaplan, Helen Tremlett, Hui Xie, J Antonio Aviña-Zubieta
{"title":"抗肿瘤坏死因子α使用者患多发性硬化症的风险:基于真实世界数据的观察性研究的方法学回顾。","authors":"Lingyi Li, Mahyar Etminan, Gilaad G Kaplan, Helen Tremlett, Hui Xie, J Antonio Aviña-Zubieta","doi":"10.2174/1574886318666230726162245","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Epidemiologic studies on the risk of multiple sclerosis (MS) or demyelinating events associated with anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) use among patients with rheumatic diseases or inflammatory bowel diseases have shown conflicting results. Causal directed acyclic graphs (cDAGs) are useful tools for understanding the differing results and identifying the structure of potential contributing biases. Most of the available literature on cDAGs uses language that might be unfamiliar to clinicians. This article demonstrates how cDAGs can be used to determine whether there is a confounder, a mediator or collider-stratification bias and when to adjust for them appropriately. We also use a case study to show how to control for potential biases by drawing a cDAG depicting anti-TNFα use and its potential to contribute to MS onset. Finally, we describe potential biases that might have led to contradictory results in previous studies that examined the effect of anti-TNFα and MS, including confounding, confounding by contraindication, and bias due to measurement error. Clinicians and researchers should be cognizant of confounding, confounding by contraindication, and bias due to measurement error when reviewing future studies on the risk of MS or demyelinating events associated with anti-TNFα use. cDAGs are a useful tool for selecting variables and identifying the structure of different biases that can affect the validity of observational studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":10777,"journal":{"name":"Current drug safety","volume":" ","pages":"200-207"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Multiple Sclerosis Risk Among Anti-tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha Users: A Methodological Review of Observational Studies Based on Real-world Data.\",\"authors\":\"Lingyi Li, Mahyar Etminan, Gilaad G Kaplan, Helen Tremlett, Hui Xie, J Antonio Aviña-Zubieta\",\"doi\":\"10.2174/1574886318666230726162245\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Epidemiologic studies on the risk of multiple sclerosis (MS) or demyelinating events associated with anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) use among patients with rheumatic diseases or inflammatory bowel diseases have shown conflicting results. Causal directed acyclic graphs (cDAGs) are useful tools for understanding the differing results and identifying the structure of potential contributing biases. Most of the available literature on cDAGs uses language that might be unfamiliar to clinicians. This article demonstrates how cDAGs can be used to determine whether there is a confounder, a mediator or collider-stratification bias and when to adjust for them appropriately. We also use a case study to show how to control for potential biases by drawing a cDAG depicting anti-TNFα use and its potential to contribute to MS onset. Finally, we describe potential biases that might have led to contradictory results in previous studies that examined the effect of anti-TNFα and MS, including confounding, confounding by contraindication, and bias due to measurement error. Clinicians and researchers should be cognizant of confounding, confounding by contraindication, and bias due to measurement error when reviewing future studies on the risk of MS or demyelinating events associated with anti-TNFα use. cDAGs are a useful tool for selecting variables and identifying the structure of different biases that can affect the validity of observational studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10777,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current drug safety\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"200-207\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current drug safety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2174/1574886318666230726162245\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current drug safety","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/1574886318666230726162245","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

关于风湿病或炎症性肠病患者使用抗肿瘤坏死因子α(TNFα)导致多发性硬化症(MS)或脱髓鞘事件风险的流行病学研究显示了相互矛盾的结果。因果有向无环图(cDAG)是了解不同结果和识别潜在偏差结构的有用工具。关于 cDAGs 的现有文献大多使用临床医生可能不熟悉的语言。本文展示了如何使用 cDAGs 来确定是否存在混杂因素、中介因素或对撞分层偏倚,以及何时对其进行适当调整。我们还通过一个案例研究,展示了如何通过绘制 cDAG 来控制潜在的偏倚,cDAG 描述了抗肿瘤坏死因子α的使用及其对多发性硬化症发病的潜在影响。最后,我们描述了以往研究抗肿瘤坏死因子α与多发性硬化症影响时可能导致矛盾结果的潜在偏倚,包括混杂因素、禁忌症混杂因素以及测量误差导致的偏倚。临床医生和研究人员在审查未来与使用抗肿瘤坏死因子α相关的多发性硬化症或脱髓鞘事件风险研究时,应认识到混杂因素、禁忌症混杂因素和测量误差导致的偏倚。cDAG 是一种有用的工具,可用于选择变量和识别可能影响观察性研究有效性的不同偏倚的结构。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Multiple Sclerosis Risk Among Anti-tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha Users: A Methodological Review of Observational Studies Based on Real-world Data.

Epidemiologic studies on the risk of multiple sclerosis (MS) or demyelinating events associated with anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) use among patients with rheumatic diseases or inflammatory bowel diseases have shown conflicting results. Causal directed acyclic graphs (cDAGs) are useful tools for understanding the differing results and identifying the structure of potential contributing biases. Most of the available literature on cDAGs uses language that might be unfamiliar to clinicians. This article demonstrates how cDAGs can be used to determine whether there is a confounder, a mediator or collider-stratification bias and when to adjust for them appropriately. We also use a case study to show how to control for potential biases by drawing a cDAG depicting anti-TNFα use and its potential to contribute to MS onset. Finally, we describe potential biases that might have led to contradictory results in previous studies that examined the effect of anti-TNFα and MS, including confounding, confounding by contraindication, and bias due to measurement error. Clinicians and researchers should be cognizant of confounding, confounding by contraindication, and bias due to measurement error when reviewing future studies on the risk of MS or demyelinating events associated with anti-TNFα use. cDAGs are a useful tool for selecting variables and identifying the structure of different biases that can affect the validity of observational studies.

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
Current drug safety
Current drug safety PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
112
期刊介绍: Current Drug Safety publishes frontier articles on all the latest advances on drug safety. The journal aims to publish the highest quality research articles, reviews and case reports in the field. Topics covered include: adverse effects of individual drugs and drug classes, management of adverse effects, pharmacovigilance and pharmacoepidemiology of new and existing drugs, post-marketing surveillance. The journal is essential reading for all researchers and clinicians involved in drug safety.
×
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