Dataset Information

Can statistic adjustment of OR minimize the potential confounding bias for meta-analysis of case-control study? A secondary data analysis.

ABSTRACT: Different confounder adjustment strategies were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) in case-control study, i.e. how many confounders original studies adjusted and what the variables are. This secondary data analysis is aimed to detect whether there are potential biases caused by difference of confounding factor adjustment strategies in case-control study, and whether such bias would impact the summary effect size of meta-analysis.We included all meta-analyses that focused on the association between breast cancer and passive smoking among non-smoking women, as well as each original case-control studies included in these meta-analyses. The relative deviations (RDs) of each original study were calculated to detect how magnitude the adjustment would impact the estimation of ORs, compared with crude ORs. At the same time, a scatter diagram was sketched to describe the distribution of adjusted ORs with different number of adjusted confounders.Substantial inconsistency existed in meta-analysis of case-control studies, which would influence the precision of the summary effect size. First, mixed unadjusted and adjusted ORs were used to combine individual OR in majority of meta-analysis. Second, original studies with different adjustment strategies of confounders were combined, i.e. the number of adjusted confounders and different factors being adjusted in each original study. Third, adjustment did not make the effect size of original studies trend to constringency, which suggested that model fitting might have failed to correct the systematic error caused by confounding.The heterogeneity of confounder adjustment strategies in case-control studies may lead to further bias for summary effect size in meta-analyses, especially for weak or medium associations so that the direction of causal inference would be even reversed. Therefore, further methodological researches are needed, referring to the assessment of confounder adjustment strategies, as well as how to take this kind of bias into consideration when drawing conclusion based on summary estimation of meta-analyses.

SUBMITTER: Liu T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5747180 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Can statistic adjustment of OR minimize the potential confounding bias for meta-analysis of case-control study? A secondary data analysis.

Liu Tianyi T Nie Xiaolu X Wu Zehao Z Zhang Ying Y Feng Guoshuang G Cai Siyu S Lv Yaqi Y Peng Xiaoxia X

BMC medical research methodology 20171229 1

<h4>Background</h4>Different confounder adjustment strategies were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) in case-control study, i.e. how many confounders original studies adjusted and what the variables are. This secondary data analysis is aimed to detect whether there are potential biases caused by difference of confounding factor adjustment strategies in case-control study, and whether such bias would impact the summary effect size of meta-analysis.<h4>Methods</h4>We included all meta-analyses th ...[more]

PMID: 29284414

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNetwork meta-analysis (NMA), a generalization of conventional MA, allows for assessing the relative effectiveness of multiple interventions. Reporting bias is a major threat to the validity of MA and NMA. Numerous methods are available to assess the robustness of MA results to reporting bias. We aimed to extend such methods to NMA.MethodsWe introduced 2 adjustment models for Bayesian NMA. First, we extended a meta-regression model that allows the effect size to depend on its standard error. Second, we used a selection model that estimates the propensity of trial results being published and in which trials with lower propensity are weighted up in the NMA model. Both models rely on the assumption that biases are exchangeable across the network. We applied the models to 2 networks of placebo-controlled trials of 12 antidepressants, with 74 trials in the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) database but only 51 with published results. NMA and adjustment models were used to estimate the effects of the 12 drugs relative to placebo, the 66 effect sizes for all possible pair-wise comparisons between drugs, probabilities of being the best drug and ranking of drugs. We compared the results from the 2 adjustment models applied to published data and NMAs of published data and NMAs of FDA data, considered as representing the totality of the data.ResultsBoth adjustment models showed reduced estimated effects for the 12 drugs relative to the placebo as compared with NMA of published data. Pair-wise effect sizes between drugs, probabilities of being the best drug and ranking of drugs were modified. Estimated drug effects relative to the placebo from both adjustment models were corrected (i.e., similar to those from NMA of FDA data) for some drugs but not others, which resulted in differences in pair-wise effect sizes between drugs and ranking.ConclusionsIn this case study, adjustment models showed that NMA of published data was not robust to reporting bias and provided estimates closer to that of NMA of FDA data, although not optimal. The validity of such methods depends on the number of trials in the network and the assumption that conventional MAs in the network share a common mean bias mechanism.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In stroke studies, ordinal logistic regression (OLR) is often used to analyze outcome on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS), whereas the non-parametric Mann-Whitney measure of superiority (MWS) has also been suggested. It is unclear how these perform comparatively when confounding adjustment is warranted. AIMS:Our aim is to quantify the performance of OLR and MWS in different confounding variable settings. METHODS:We set up a simulation study with three different scenarios; (1) dichotomous confounding variables, (2) continuous confounding variables, and (3) confounding variable settings mimicking a study on functional outcome after stroke. We compared adjusted ordinal logistic regression (aOLR) and stratified Mann-Whitney measure of superiority (sMWS), and also used propensity scores to stratify the MWS (psMWS). For comparability, OLR estimates were transformed to a MWS. We report bias, the percentage of runs that produced a point estimate deviating by more than 0.05 points (point estimate variation), and the coverage probability. RESULTS:In scenario 1, there was no bias in both sMWS and aOLR, with similar point estimate variation and coverage probabilities. In scenario 2, sMWS resulted in more bias (0.04 versus 0.00), and higher point estimate variation (41.6% versus 3.3%), whereas coverage probabilities were similar. In scenario 3, there was no bias in both methods, point estimate variation was higher in the sMWS (6.7%) versus aOLR (1.1%), and coverage probabilities were 0.98 (sMWS) versus 0.95 (aOLR). With psMWS, bias remained 0.00, with less point estimate variation (1.5%) and a coverage probability of 0.95. CONCLUSIONS:The bias of both adjustment methods was similar in our stroke simulation scenario, and the higher point estimate variation in the MWS improved with propensity score based stratification. The stratified MWS is a valid alternative for adjusted OLR only when the ratio of number of strata versus number of observations is relatively low, but propensity score based stratification extends the application range of the MWS.

Dataset Information

Can statistic adjustment of OR minimize the potential confounding bias for meta-analysis of case-control study? A secondary data analysis.

Publications

Can statistic adjustment of OR minimize the potential confounding bias for meta-analysis of case-control study? A secondary data analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure