BACKGROUND: Comparing causal effect estimates obtained using observational data to those obtained from the gold standard (i.e., randomized controlled trials [RCTs]) helps assess the validity of these estimates. However, comparisons are challenging due to differences between observational data and RCT generated data. The unknown treatment assignment mechanism in the observational data and varying sampling mechanisms between the RCT and the observational data can lead to confounding and sampling bias, respectively.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to propose a two-step framework to validate causal effect estimates obtained from observational data by adjusting for both mechanisms.
METHODS: An estimator of causal effects related to the two mechanisms is constructed. A two-step framework for comparing causal effect estimates is derived from the estimator. An R package RCTrep is developed to implement the framework in practice.
RESULTS: A simulation study is conducted to show that using our framework observational data can produce causal effect estimates similar to those of an RCT. A real-world application of the framework to validate treatment effects of adjuvant chemotherapy obtained from registry data is demonstrated.
CONCLUSIONS: This  study constructs a framework for comparing causal effect estimates between observational data and RCT data, facilitating the assessment of the validity of causal effect estimates obtained from observational data.

The inability to correctly account for unmeasured confounding can lead to bias in parameter estimates, invalid uncertainty assessments, and erroneous conclusions. Sensitivity analysis is an approach to investigate the impact of unmeasured confounding in observational studies. However, the adoption of this approach has been slow given the lack of accessible software. An extensive review of available R packages to account for unmeasured confounding list deterministic sensitivity analysis methods, but no R packages were listed for probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The R package unmconf implements the first available package for probabilistic sensitivity analysis through a Bayesian unmeasured confounding model. The package allows for normal, binary, Poisson, or gamma responses, accounting for one or two unmeasured confounders from the normal or binomial distribution. The goal of unmconf is to implement a user friendly package that performs Bayesian modeling in the presence of unmeasured confounders, with simple commands on the front end while performing more intensive computation on the back end. We investigate the applicability of this package through novel simulation studies. The results indicate that credible intervals will have near nominal coverage probability and smaller bias when modeling the unmeasured confounder(s) for varying levels of internal/external validation data across various combinations of response-unmeasured confounder distributional families.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Disease latency is defined as the time from disease initiation to disease diagnosis. Disease latency bias (DLB) can arise in epidemiological studies that examine latent outcomes, since the exact timing of the disease inception is unknown and might occur before exposure initiation, potentially leading to bias. Although DLB can affect epidemiological studies that examine different types of chronic disease (e.g. Alzheimer\'s disease, cancer etc), the manner by which DLB can introduce bias into these studies has not been previously elucidated. Information on the specific types of bias, and their structure, that can arise secondary to DLB is critical for researchers, to enable better understanding and control for DLB.
METHODS: Here we describe four scenarios by which DLB can introduce bias (through different structures) into epidemiological studies that address latent outcomes, using directed acyclic graphs (DAGs). We also discuss potential strategies to better understand, examine and control for DLB in these studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Using causal diagrams, we show that disease latency bias can affect results of epidemiological studies through: (i) unmeasured confounding; (ii) reverse causality; (iii) selection bias; (iv) bias through a mediator.
CONCLUSIONS: Disease latency bias is an important bias that can affect a number of epidemiological studies that address latent outcomes. Causal diagrams can assist researchers better identify and control for this bias.

BACKGROUND: High-dimensional propensity scoring (HDPS) is a method for empirically identifying potential confounders within large healthcare databases such as administrative claims data. However, this method has not yet been applied to large national health surveys such as the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS), an ongoing nationally representative survey of older adults in the United States and important resource in gerontology research.
METHODS: In this Research Practice article, we present an overview of HDPS and describe the specific data transformation steps and analytic considerations needed to apply it to national health surveys. We applied HDPS within NHATS to investigate the association between self-reported visual difficulty and incident dementia, comparing HDPS to conventional confounder selection methods.
RESULTS: Among 7 207 dementia-free NHATS Wave 1 respondents, 528 (7.3%) had self-reported visual difficulty. In an unadjusted discrete time proportional hazards model accounting for the complex survey design of NHATS, self-reported visual difficulty was strongly associated with incident dementia (odds ratio [OR] 2.34, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.95-2.81). After adjustment for standard investigator-selected covariates via inverse probability weighting, the magnitude of this association decreased, but evidence of an association remained (OR 1.44, 95% CI: 1.11-1.85). Adding 75 HDPS-prioritized variables to the investigator-selected propensity score model resulted in further attenuation of the association between visual impairment and dementia (OR 0.94, 95% CI: 0.70-1.23).
CONCLUSIONS: HDPS can be successfully applied to national health surveys such as NHATS and may improve confounder adjustment. We hope developing this framework will encourage future consideration of HDPS in this setting.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies are frequently used to estimate the comparative effectiveness of different colorectal cancer (CRC) screening methods due to the practical limitations and time needed to conduct large clinical trials. However, time-varying confounders, e.g. polyp detection in the last screening, can bias statistical results. Recently, generalized methods, or G-methods, have been used for the analysis of observational studies of CRC screening, given their ability to account for such time-varying confounders. Discretization, or the process of converting continuous functions into discrete counterparts, is required for G-methods when the treatment and outcomes are assessed at a continuous scale.
METHODS: This paper evaluates the interplay between time-varying confounding and discretization, which can induce bias in assessing screening effectiveness. We investigate this bias in evaluating the effect of different CRC screening methods that differ from each other in typical screening frequency.
CONCLUSIONS: First, using theory, we establish the direction of the bias. Then, we use simulations of hypothetical settings to study the bias magnitude for varying levels of discretization, frequency of screening and length of the study period. We develop a method to assess possible bias due to coarsening in simulated situations.
CONCLUSIONS: The proposed method can inform future studies of screening effectiveness, especially for CRC, by determining the choice of interval lengths where data are discretized to minimize bias due to coarsening while balancing computational costs.

Pharmacoepidemiologic studies using routinely collected data allow researchers to propose drugs for repurposing trials for dementia prevention or treatment. A recent cohort study reported a 54% lower dementia risk among users of sildenafil compared to users of certain cardiovascular medications. We caution that \"confounding by indication\" can arise when outcomes are compared between a drug of interest and an inappropriate comparator. Here, we emphasize important considerations in selecting an active comparator. We assess the implications of substantial risk of confounding by indication in pharmacoepidemiologic studies linking phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors to lower dementia risk.

BACKGROUND: Comparative studies on surgical treatments with time-to-event endpoints have provided substantial evidence for clinical practice, but the accurate use of survival data analysis and the control of confounding bias remain big challenges.
METHODS: This was a survey of surgical studies with survival outcomes published in four general medical journals and five general surgical journals in 2021. The two most concerned statistical issues were evaluated, including confounding control by propensity score analysis (PSA) or multivariable analysis and testing of proportional hazards (PH) assumption in Cox model.
RESULTS: A total of 74 studies were included, comprising 63 observational studies and 11 randomized controlled trials. Among the observational studies, the proportion of studies utilizing PSA in surgical oncology and non-oncology studies was similar (40.9 % versus 36.8 %, P = 0.762). However, the former reported a significantly lower proportion of PH assumption assessments compared to the latter (13.6 % versus 42.1 %, P = 0.020). Twenty-five observational studies (25/63) used PSA methods, but two-thirds of them (17/25) showed unclear balance of baseline data after PSA. And the proportion of PH assumption testing after PSA was slightly lower than that before PSA, but the difference was not statistically significant (24.0 % versus 28.0 %, P = 0.317). Comprehensive suggestions were given on confounding control in survival analysis and alternative resolutions for non-compliance with PH assumption.
CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights suboptimal reporting of PH assumption evaluation in observational surgical studies both before and after PSA. Efforts and consensus are needed with respect to the underlying assumptions of statistical methods.

BACKGROUND: Perceived discrimination in health care settings can have adverse consequences on mental health in minority groups. However, the association between perceived discrimination and mental health is prone to unmeasured confounding. The study aims to quantitatively evaluate the influence of unmeasured confounding in this association, using g-estimation.
METHODS: In a predominantly African American cohort, we applied g-estimation to estimate the association between perceived discrimination and mental health, adjusted and unadjusted for measured confounders. Mental health was measured using clinical diagnoses of anxiety, depression and bipolar disorder. Perceived discrimination was measured as the number of patient-reported discrimination events in health care settings. Measured confounders included demographic, socioeconomic, residential and health characteristics. The influence of confounding was denoted as α1 from g-estimation. We compared α1 for measured and unmeasured confounding.
RESULTS: Strong associations between perceived discrimination in health care settings and mental health outcomes were observed. For anxiety, the odds ratio (95% confidence interval) unadjusted and adjusted for measured confounders were 1.30 (1.21, 1.39) and 1.26 (1.17, 1.36), respectively. The α1 for measured confounding was -0.066. Unmeasured confounding with α1=0.200, which was over three times that of measured confounding, corresponds to an odds ratio of 1.12 (1.01, 1.24). Similar results were observed for other mental health outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with measured confounding, unmeasured that was three times measured confounding was not enough to explain away the association between perceived discrimination and mental health, suggesting that this association is robust to unmeasured confounding. This study provides a novel framework to quantitatively evaluate unmeasured confounding.