Selection Bias

选择偏差
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    电子健康记录(EHR)越来越被认为是临床研究中招募患者的一种具有成本效益的资源。然而,如何从数百万个体中最佳地选择一个队列来回答一个感兴趣的科学问题仍不清楚.考虑一项研究来估计昂贵结果的平均值或平均差。预测结果的廉价辅助协变量通常可以在患者的健康记录中获得,提供了一个有选择地招募病人的机会,这可能会提高下游分析的效率。在本文中,我们提出了一种两阶段采样设计,该设计利用了EHR数据中辅助协变量的可用信息。使用EHR数据进行多相采样的一个关键挑战是潜在的选择偏差,因为EHR数据不一定代表目标人群。扩展有关两阶段采样设计的现有文献,我们得出了一种最佳的两阶段抽样方法,该方法可以提高随机抽样的效率,同时考虑到EHR数据中潜在的选择偏差。我们通过模拟研究和利用密歇根基因组学计划的数据评估美国成年人高血压患病率的应用,证明了我们的采样设计的效率提高。密歇根医学的纵向生物储物库。
    Electronic health records (EHRs) are increasingly recognized as a cost-effective resource for patient recruitment in clinical research. However, how to optimally select a cohort from millions of individuals to answer a scientific question of interest remains unclear. Consider a study to estimate the mean or mean difference of an expensive outcome. Inexpensive auxiliary covariates predictive of the outcome may often be available in patients\' health records, presenting an opportunity to recruit patients selectively, which may improve efficiency in downstream analyses. In this paper we propose a two-phase sampling design that leverages available information on auxiliary covariates in EHR data. A key challenge in using EHR data for multiphase sampling is the potential selection bias, because EHR data are not necessarily representative of the target population. Extending existing literature on two-phase sampling design, we derive an optimal two-phase sampling method that improves efficiency over random sampling while accounting for the potential selection bias in EHR data. We demonstrate the efficiency gain from our sampling design via simulation studies and an application evaluating the prevalence of hypertension among U.S. adults leveraging data from the Michigan Genomics Initiative, a longitudinal biorepository in Michigan Medicine.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    我们的研究旨在建立随机对照试验(RCT)中的选择偏倚风险,根据Cochrane的“偏倚风险”,这些试验总体上被评为具有“低偏倚”风险。版本2(RoB2)工具。对当前RCT的系统评价进行了系统的文献检索。从确定的评论中,提取总体“高偏倚”和“低偏倚”RoB2风险评级的随机对照试验。对所有RCT进行选择偏倚风险的统计学检验。从测试结果来看,真积极,正负,假阳性,或者建立了假阴性评级,并以95%的置信区间(CI)计算误报率(FOR)。通过计算RoB2域1评分的负似然比(-LR)进行亚组分析:随机化过程引起的偏倚。确定并测试了总共1070个已发表的RCT(中位发表年份:2018年;四分位数范围:2013-2020年)。我们发现,所有“低偏倚”(RoB2)级RCT中有7.61%具有高选择偏倚风险(FOR7.61%;95%CI:6.31%-9.14%),并且“低偏倚”(RoB2域1)级RCT中高选择偏倚风险的可能性比低选择偏倚风险的高6%(-LR:1.06;95%CI:0.98)。这些发现提出了有关使用Cochrane的RoB2工具进行“低偏倚”风险评级的有效性以及最近发表的RCT的一些结果的有效性的问题。我们的结果还表明,“低偏倚”风险评估的临床证据实际上没有偏倚的可能性很低,这种概括基于有限的,预先指定的一套评估标准可能无法证明这些证据反映了真实的治疗效果。
    Our study aimed to establish the risk of selection bias in randomized controlled trials (RCT) that were overall rated as having \"low bias\" risk according to Cochrane\'s Risk of Bias, version 2 (RoB 2) tool. A systematic literature search of current systematic reviews of RCTs was conducted. From the identified reviews, RCTs with overall \"high bias\" and \"low bias\" RoB 2 risk ratings were extracted. All RCTs were statistically tested for selection bias risk. From the test results, true positive, true negative, false positive, or false negative ratings were established, and the false omission rate (FOR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was computed. Subgroup analysis was conducted by computing the negative likelihood ratio (-LR) concerning RoB 2 domain 1 ratings: bias arising from the randomization process. A total of 1070 published RCTs (median publication year: 2018; interquartile range: 2013-2020) were identified and tested. We found that 7.61% of all \"low bias\" (RoB 2)-rated RCTs were of high selection bias risk (FOR 7.61%; 95% CI: 6.31%-9.14%) and that the likelihood for high selection bias risk in \"low bias\" (RoB 2 domain 1)-rated RCTs was 6% higher than that for low selection bias risk (-LR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.98-1.15). These findings raise issues about the validity of \"low bias\" risk ratings using Cochrane\'s RoB 2 tool as well as about the validity of some of the results from recently published RCTs. Our results also suggest that the likelihood of a \"low bias\" risk-rated body of clinical evidence being actually bias-free is low, and that generalization based on a limited, pre-specified set of appraisal criteria may not justify a high level of confidence that such evidence reflects the true treatment effect.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    同意偏见是生物医学研究中的一种选择偏见,其中同意研究的人与不同意的人系统不同。它在精准医学研究中特别重要,因为这些研究的复杂性阻碍了某些亚组的理解,信任,并同意这项研究。因为同意偏见扭曲了研究结果,并导致研究利益的不公平分配,学者们提出了两种减少同意偏见的方案:改革现有的同意模式和完全取消同意要求。这项研究利用现有数据探索了在观察性研究中放弃同意的可能性,因为如果加强隐私保护,与临床试验相比,它们对参与者的风险更小。建议在未经同意的情况下,进行安全性增强和数据保护影响评估等数据保护机制,以保护观察性研究参与者的数据隐私。
    Consent bias is a type of selection bias in biomedical research where those consenting to the research differ systematically from those not consenting. It is particularly relevant in precision medicine research because the complexity of these studies prevents certain subgroups from understanding, trusting, and consenting to the research. Because consent bias distorts research findings and causes inequitable distribution of research benefits, scholars propose two types of schemes to reduce consent bias: reforming existing consent models and removing the consent requirement altogether. This study explores the possibility of waiving consent in observational studies using existing data, because they involve fewer risks to participants than clinical trials if privacy safeguards are strengthened. It suggests that data protection mechanisms such as security enhancement and data protection impact assessment should be conducted to protect data privacy of participants in observational studies without consent.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    纵向研究是了解健康风险因素的关键,幸福,和疾病,然而,如果研究邀请和参与是非随机的,则关联可能存在偏见.宗教/精神信仰和行为(RSBB)越来越被认为与健康有潜在的重要关系。然而,目前尚不清楚RSBB是否与研究参与相关.我们检查RSBB是否与参与纵向出生队列ALSPAC(父母和子女的Avon纵向研究)有关。
    使用了三个RSBB因素:宗教信仰(信仰上帝/神力;是/不确定/否),宗教信仰(基督教/无/其他),和宗教出席(出席礼拜场所的频率)。以三种方式测量参与:i)完成的问卷/诊所的总数(线性和序数模型);ii)完成最近的问卷(逻辑模型);和iii)参与的长度(生存模型)。对ALSPAC母亲进行了重复分析,他们的合作伙伴,和学习的孩子,并针对相关的社会人口混杂因素进行了调整。
    在所有三个队列中,宗教出勤与参与所有调整模型呈正相关。例如,参加礼拜场所的母亲平均每月至少完成两次问卷调查(可能的50),完成最新问卷的几率要高出50%,辍学的风险降低了25%,相对于那些没有参加的人。在调整后的分析中,宗教信仰和出席与参与无关。然而,大多数未调整的模型显示RSBB与参与之间存在关联.
    调整混杂因素后,宗教出席-不是宗教信仰或从属关系-与参加ALSPAC有关。这些结果表明,使用RSBB变量(尤其是宗教出勤)可能会导致选择偏差和虚假关联;这些潜在的偏见应在未来的研究中使用这些数据进行探索和讨论。
    UNASSIGNED: Longitudinal studies are key to understanding risk factors for health, well-being, and disease, yet associations may be biased if study invitation and participation are non-random. Religious/spiritual beliefs and behaviours (RSBB) are increasingly recognised as having potentially important relationships with health. However, it is unclear whether RSBB is associated with study participation. We examine whether RSBB is associated with participation in the longitudinal birth cohort ALSPAC (Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children).
    UNASSIGNED: Three RSBB factors were used: religious belief (belief in God/a divine power; yes/not sure/no), religious affiliation (Christian/none/other), and religious attendance (frequency of attendance at a place of worship). Participation was measured in three ways: i) total number of questionnaires/clinics completed (linear and ordinal models); ii) completion of the most recent questionnaire (logistic model); and iii) length of participation (survival model). Analyses were repeated for the ALSPAC mothers, their partners, and the study children, and were adjusted for relevant socio-demographic confounders.
    UNASSIGNED: Religious attendance was positively associated with participation in all adjusted models in all three cohorts. For example, study mothers who attended a place of worship at least once a month on average completed two more questionnaires (out of a possible 50), had 50% greater odds of having completed the most recent questionnaire, and had 25% reduced risk of drop-out, relative to those who did not attend. In the adjusted analyses, religious belief and attendance were not associated with participation. However, the majority of unadjusted models showed associations between RSBB and participation.
    UNASSIGNED: After adjusting for confounders, religious attendance - not religious belief or affiliation - was associated with participation in ALSPAC. These results indicate that use of RSBB variables (and religious attendance in particular) may result in selection bias and spurious associations; these potential biases should be explored and discussed in future studies using these data.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    基于Web的认知能力测试允许在没有地理限制的情况下进行大规模评估。然而,它能在多大程度上覆盖认知研究招募的典型人口学群体以外的人群,目前尚不清楚.这项研究的重点是比较选择参加认知研究(HUNT4-Hjernetrim)的一般人群研究(HUNT4)与未参加认知研究的个体的特征。此外,我们调查了参与者的参与度和用户体验。我们获得了社会人口统计数据,健康状况(身体和精神),自我报告的认知或学习困难,Hjernetrim参与者和非参与者的生活方式因素来自HUNT4数据库。Hjernetrim参与了13项认知测试,通过在线平台备忘录管理。我们使用逻辑回归来评估参与偏差,使用线性回归来评估参与者的参与度和用户体验。在通过常规邮件邀请Hjernetrim的65,851名HUNT4参与者中,5634(9.4%,13-97岁,54%女性)参加。样本中表现最好的是50-79岁的人,女人,受过高等教育,独自生活,从城市地区,不从事职业活动,并报告记忆投诉。80岁以上的人,有运动障碍或视力障碍,和有学习障碍的青少年,代表性不足。参与者更有可能有心理健康问题,患有癌症或幸存下来,不太可能患有心血管疾病。参与者主要在工作日登录,一天中的首选时间因年龄而异。平均而言,参与者使用了42分钟,完成了78%的任务.使用PC提供了最完整的数据。在用户体验方面,65%为阳性,14%为阴性或报告技术困难。总的来说,该研究表明,基于网络的方法可以得到一个相对良好的代表性样本,其中包括通常难以接触到的群体.躯体和精神疾病的存在对参与有不同的影响。参与者完成了大多数测试,并报告了总体积极的经历。
    Web-based testing of cognitive abilities allows for large-scale assessments without geographical constraints. Yet, the extent to which it can reach populations beyond the typical demographic groups recruited for cognitive studies is unclear. This study focused on comparing the characteristics of individuals from a general population study (HUNT4) who chose to participate in a cognitive study (HUNT4-Hjernetrim) with those who did not. Additionally, we investigated participants\' engagement and user experience. We obtained data on socio-demographics, health conditions (both physical and mental), self-reported cognitive or learning difficulties, and lifestyle factors of Hjernetrim participants and non-participants from the HUNT4 database. Hjernetrim involved 13 cognitive tests, administered through the online platform Memoro. We used logistic regressions to assess participation biases and linear regressions to assess participants\' engagement and user experience. Of 65,851 HUNT4 participants invited via regular mail to Hjernetrim, 5634 (9.4%, aged 13-97, 54% women) participated. The best represented in the sample were 50-79-year-olds, women, tertiary educated, living alone, from urban areas, not occupationally active, and reporting memory complaints. Individuals who were aged 80+, had motor or vision impairments, and teenagers with learning disabilities, were underrepresented. Participants were more likely to have mental health problems, have or survived cancer and less likely to have cardiovascular disease. Participants logged on mainly during weekdays, the preferred time of day varied by age. On average, participants used 42 min and completed 78% of the tasks. Using PCs provided the most complete data. In terms of user experiences, 65% were positive while 14% were negative or reported technical difficulties. Overall, the study demonstrated that web-based methodology allowed for a relatively well-represented sample that included groups typically difficult to reach. The presence of somatic and mental diseases had a variable influence on participation. Participants finished most tests and reported positive experiences overall.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    总结最近关于差异研究中选择偏见的文献,解决描述性或因果关系问题,痴呆症研究的例子。
    定义一个明确的估计,包括目标人群,对于评估泛化偏差或对撞机分层偏差是否对推论构成威胁至关重要。差异研究中的选择偏差可能来自抽样策略,微分夹杂物管道,后续损失,和竞争事件。如果发生竞争事件,可以在不同的假设下估计几个潜在相关的估计,不同的解释。视差的表观幅度可以基于所选择的估计和而实质上不同。如果不是基于已知的抽样方案,随机和观察性研究都可能歪曲健康差异或治疗效果的异质性。
    研究人员最近在与选择偏差相关的概念化和方法方面取得了实质性进展。这一进展将提高描述性和因果健康差异研究的相关性。
    UNASSIGNED: To summarize recent literature on selection bias in disparities research addressing either descriptive or causal questions, with examples from dementia research.
    UNASSIGNED: Defining a clear estimand, including the target population, is essential to assess whether generalizability bias or collider-stratification bias are threats to inferences. Selection bias in disparities research can result from sampling strategies, differential inclusion pipelines, loss to follow-up, and competing events. If competing events occur, several potentially relevant estimands can be estimated under different assumptions, with different interpretations. The apparent magnitude of a disparity can differ substantially based on the chosen estimand. Both randomized and observational studies may misrepresent health disparities or heterogeneity in treatment effects if they are not based on a known sampling scheme.
    UNASSIGNED: Researchers have recently made substantial progress in conceptualization and methods related to selection bias. This progress will improve the relevance of both descriptive and causal health disparities research.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:评估儿童和年轻人长Covid(CYP)的研究结果需要根据其方法学局限性进行评估。例如,如果随着时间的推移,无反应和/或自然减员在CYP的亚组之间存在系统性差异,调查结果可能有偏见,任何概括都是有限的。本研究旨在(i)为LongCovid(CLoCk)研究的儿童和年轻人构建调查权重,(ii)将其应用于已发表的CLoCk研究结果表明,在SARS-CoV-2阳性和阴性CYP中,呼吸急促和疲倦的患病率随基线至基线后12个月的时间增加。
    方法:对Logistic回归模型进行拟合,以计算(i)预期参与的响应的概率,(二)给予及时回应,和(iii)(Re)感染给予及时反应。回应,及时响应和(再)感染权重被生成为相应概率的倒数,总体的“预期人口”调查体重是这些体重的乘积。调查重量被修剪,以及开发的交互式工具,使用2021年英国人口普查的数据将目标人口调查权重重新校准为一般人口。
    结果:成功开发了用于CLoCk研究的灵活调查权重。在说明性示例中,重新加权的结果(当考虑响应选择时,自然减员,和(再)感染)与已发表的发现一致。
    结论:为CDoCk研究创建并使用了灵活的调查权重,以解决潜在的偏见和选择问题。先前报道的来自CLoCk的前瞻性发现可推广到英格兰的CYP更广泛的人群。这项研究强调了在考虑发现的普遍性时,考虑选择样本和随时间流失的重要性。
    BACKGROUND: Findings from studies assessing Long Covid in children and young people (CYP) need to be assessed in light of their methodological limitations. For example, if non-response and/or attrition over time systematically differ by sub-groups of CYP, findings could be biased and any generalisation limited. The present study aimed to (i) construct survey weights for the Children and young people with Long Covid (CLoCk) study, and (ii) apply them to published CLoCk findings showing the prevalence of shortness of breath and tiredness increased over time from baseline to 12-months post-baseline in both SARS-CoV-2 Positive and Negative CYP.
    METHODS: Logistic regression models were fitted to compute the probability of (i) Responding given envisioned to take part, (ii) Responding timely given responded, and (iii) (Re)infection given timely response. Response, timely response and (re)infection weights were generated as the reciprocal of the corresponding probability, with an overall \'envisioned population\' survey weight derived as the product of these weights. Survey weights were trimmed, and an interactive tool developed to re-calibrate target population survey weights to the general population using data from the 2021 UK Census.
    RESULTS: Flexible survey weights for the CLoCk study were successfully developed. In the illustrative example, re-weighted results (when accounting for selection in response, attrition, and (re)infection) were consistent with published findings.
    CONCLUSIONS: Flexible survey weights to address potential bias and selection issues were created for and used in the CLoCk study. Previously reported prospective findings from CLoCk are generalisable to the wider population of CYP in England. This study highlights the importance of considering selection into a sample and attrition over time when considering generalisability of findings.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    最近,在开发医疗领域的新技术和设备方面取得了长足的进步,包括微创手术.评估这些治疗的有效性需要研究设计,如随机对照试验。然而,由于某些治疗的性质,随机化并不总是可行的,导致观察性研究的使用。从观察性研究中估计的效应大小受到混杂因素造成的选择偏差的影响。减少这种偏差的一种方法是倾向评分。本研究旨在使用R的实际例子在两组之间引入倾向得分匹配过程。雷克斯,Excel插件图形用户界面统计程序,提供给不熟悉R编程的研究人员。进一步的技术,例如与三个或更多的组匹配,倾向得分加权和分层,以及缺失值的估算,被总结为提供本教程中未涵盖的更复杂研究的方法。
    Recently, there has been considerable progress in developing new technologies and equipment for the medical field, including minimally invasive surgeries. Evaluating the effectiveness of these treatments requires study designs like randomized controlled trials. However, due to the nature of certain treatments, randomization is not always feasible, leading to the use of observational studies. The effect size estimated from observational studies is subject to selection bias caused by confounders. One method to reduce this bias is propensity scoring. This study aimed to introduce a propensity score matching process between two groups using a practical example with R. Additionally, Rex, an Excel add-in graphical user interface statistical program, is provided for researchers unfamiliar with R programming. Further techniques, such as matching with three or more groups, propensity score weighting and stratification, and imputation of missing values, are summarized to offer approaches for more complex studies not covered in this tutorial.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:提出了一种测试方法,用于在单个前瞻性对照临床治疗试验中识别潜在的选择偏倚风险,该方法可由试验评审员应用。
    方法:对该方法进行了详细描述,并在8项随机对照试验(RCT)中进行了测试,报告的Berger-Exner检验结果为阴性,并在8项前瞻性试验中进行了测试。对照队列研究作为阳性对照。所有16项研究均通过系统的文献检索进行鉴定。
    结果:试验方法对所有RCT结果均为阴性,对8项队列研究中的6项结果均为阳性。
    结论:两种研究类型的所有测试结果均保持在预期范围内,建议正确识别选择偏差风险的相当高的准确性。然而,该方法无法确定这种偏倚风险是否确实改变了试验结果.相反,阳性检验结果可为试验评估期间将试验评为高选择偏倚风险提供经验依据.
    OBJECTIVE: A test method is proposed for identifying potential selection bias risk in single prospective controlled clinical therapy trials that can be applied by trial reviewers.
    METHODS: The method is described in detail and was tested on eight randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with reported negative Berger-Exner test results as negative and on eight prospective, controlled cohort studies as positive controls. All 16 studies were identified by systematic literature search.
    RESULTS: The test method yielded negative results for all RCTs and positive results for six out of the eight cohort studies.
    CONCLUSIONS: All test results remained within the expected limits for both study types, suggesting a reasonably high accuracy for correctly identifying selection bias risk. However, the method does not provide the possibility to establish whether such bias risk has actually altered trial outcomes. Instead, a positive test result may provide an empirical basis for rating a trial as of high selection bias risk during trial appraisal.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    空间聚类分析通常用于病例对照数据的流行病学研究中,以检测研究区域中的某些区域是否具有过多的疾病风险。病例对照研究容易受到潜在偏见的影响,包括选择偏见,这可能是由于符合条件的受试者未参与研究。然而,没有系统评估不参与对空间聚类分析结果的影响。在本文中,我们进行了一项模拟研究,评估了不参与对空间聚类分析的影响,在各种情景下,这些情景改变了不参与研究的位置和比率,以及模拟病例对照研究中疾病风险升高区的存在和强度.我们发现,与病例相比,对照者参与程度较低的地理区域会大大增加识别人工空间簇的假阳性率。此外,我们发现,即使是在高风险真实区域之外的适度不参与也会降低识别真实区域的空间能力。我们提出了一种空间算法来校正潜在的空间结构的非参与,该算法比较了观察到的样本和潜在群体的空间分布。我们证明了其在没有高风险的情况下显着降低假阳性率的能力,并且可以抵抗降低的空间敏感性来检测真正的高风险区域。我们将我们的方法应用于非霍奇金淋巴瘤的病例对照研究。我们的发现表明,应更加关注不参与空间集群研究的潜在影响。
    Spatial cluster analyses are commonly used in epidemiologic studies of case-control data to detect whether certain areas in a study region have an excess of disease risk. Case-control studies are susceptible to potential biases including selection bias, which can result from non-participation of eligible subjects in the study. However, there has been no systematic evaluation of the effects of non-participation on the findings of spatial cluster analyses. In this paper, we perform a simulation study assessing the effect of non-participation on spatial cluster analysis using the local spatial scan statistic under a variety of scenarios that vary the location and rates of study non-participation and the presence and intensity of a zone of elevated risk for disease for simulated case-control studies. We find that geographic areas of lower participation among controls than cases can greatly inflate false-positive rates for identification of artificial spatial clusters. Additionally, we find that even modest non-participation outside of a true zone of elevated risk can decrease spatial power to identify the true zone. We propose a spatial algorithm to correct for potentially spatially structured non-participation that compares the spatial distributions of the observed sample and underlying population. We demonstrate its ability to markedly decrease false positive rates in the absence of elevated risk and resist decreasing spatial sensitivity to detect true zones of elevated risk. We apply our method to a case-control study of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Our findings suggest that greater attention should be paid to the potential effects of non-participation in spatial cluster studies.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

公众号