A cautionary note on a recently proposed sensitivity analysis for unmeasured confounding.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ciocanea-Teodorescu I
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8271188 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A cautionary note on a recently proposed sensitivity analysis for unmeasured confounding.
Ciocănea-Teodorescu Iuliana I Sjölander Arvid A
International journal of epidemiology 20210701 3
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11438546 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Random-effects meta-analyses of observational studies can produce biased estimates if the synthesized studies are subject to unmeasured confounding. We propose sensitivity analyses quantifying the extent to which unmeasured confounding of specified magnitude could reduce to below a certain threshold the proportion of true effect sizes that are scientifically meaningful. We also develop converse methods to estimate the strength of confounding capable of reducing the proportion of scientifically meaningful true effects to below a chosen threshold. These methods apply when a "bias factor" is assumed to be normally distributed across studies or is assessed across a range of fixed values. Our estimators are derived using recently proposed sharp bounds on confounding bias within a single study that do not make assumptions regarding the unmeasured confounders themselves or the functional form of their relationships with the exposure and outcome of interest. We provide an R package, EValue, and a free website that compute point estimates and inference and produce plots for conducting such sensitivity analyses. These methods facilitate principled use of random-effects meta-analyses of observational studies to assess the strength of causal evidence for a hypothesis.
| S-EPMC7518377 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Conventional propensity score methods encounter challenges when unmeasured confounding is present, as it becomes impossible to accurately estimate the gold-standard propensity score when data on certain confounders are unavailable. Propensity score calibration (PSC) addresses this issue by constructing a surrogate for the gold-standard propensity score under the surrogacy assumption. This assumption posits that the error-prone propensity score, based on observed confounders, is independent of the outcome when conditioned on the gold-standard propensity score and the exposure. However, this assumption implies that confounders cannot directly impact the outcome and that their effects on the outcome are solely mediated through the propensity score. This raises concerns regarding the applicability of PSC in practical settings where confounders can directly affect the outcome. While PSC aims to target a conditional treatment effect by conditioning on a subject's unobservable propensity score, the causal interest in the latter case lies in a conditional treatment effect conditioned on a subject's baseline characteristics. Our analysis reveals that PSC is generally biased unless the effects of confounders on the outcome and treatment are proportional to each other. Furthermore, we identify 2 sources of bias: 1) the noncollapsibility of effect measures, such as the odds ratio or hazard ratio and 2) residual confounding, as the calibrated propensity score may not possess the properties of a valid propensity score.
| S-EPMC11484665 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMediation analysis is a powerful tool for understanding mechanisms, but conclusions about direct and indirect effects will be invalid if there is unmeasured confounding of the mediator-outcome relationship. Sensitivity analysis methods allow researchers to assess the extent of this bias but are not always used. One particularly straightforward technique that requires minimal assumptions is nonetheless difficult to interpret, and so would benefit from a more intuitive parameterization.MethodsWe conducted an exhaustive numerical search over simulated mediation effects, calculating the proportion of scenarios in which a bound for unmeasured mediator-outcome confounding held under an alternative parameterization.ResultsIn over 99% of cases, the bound for the bias held when we described the strength of confounding directly via the confounder-mediator relationship instead of via the conditional exposure-confounder relationship.ConclusionsResearchers can conduct sensitivity analysis using a method that describes the strength of the confounder-outcome relationship and the approximate strength of the confounder-mediator relationship that, together, would be required to explain away a direct or indirect effect.
| S-EPMC6768718 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Data-driven methods for personalizing treatment assignment have garnered much attention from clinicians and researchers. Dynamic treatment regimes formalize this through a sequence of decision rules that map individual patient characteristics to a recommended treatment. Observational studies are commonly used for estimating dynamic treatment regimes due to the potentially prohibitive costs of conducting sequential multiple assignment randomized trials. However, estimating a dynamic treatment regime from observational data can lead to bias in the estimated regime due to unmeasured confounding. Sensitivity analyses are useful for assessing how robust the conclusions of the study are to a potential unmeasured confounder. A Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis is a probabilistic approach that involves positing and sampling from distributions for the parameters governing the bias. We propose a method for performing a Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis of the bias due to unmeasured confounding in the estimation of dynamic treatment regimes. We demonstrate the performance of the proposed procedure with a simulation study and apply it to an observational study examining tailoring the use of antidepressant medication for reducing symptoms of depression using data from Kaiser Permanente Washington.
| S-EPMC11426919 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC3606287 | biostudies-literature
Project description:It is often of interest to decompose the total effect of an exposure into a component that acts on the outcome through some mediator and a component that acts independently through other pathways. Said another way, we are interested in the direct and indirect effects of the exposure on the outcome. Even if the exposure is randomly assigned, it is often infeasible to randomize the mediator, leaving the mediator-outcome confounding not fully controlled. We develop a sensitivity analysis technique that can bound the direct and indirect effects without parametric assumptions about the unmeasured mediator-outcome confounding.
| S-EPMC4890130 | biostudies-literature
Project description:When estimating causal effects, unmeasured confounding and model misspecification are both potential sources of bias. We propose a method to simultaneously address both issues in the form of a semi-parametric sensitivity analysis. In particular, our approach incorporates Bayesian Additive Regression Trees into a two-parameter sensitivity analysis strategy that assesses sensitivity of posterior distributions of treatment effects to choices of sensitivity parameters. This results in an easily interpretable framework for testing for the impact of an unmeasured confounder that also limits the number of modeling assumptions. We evaluate our approach in a large-scale simulation setting and with high blood pressure data taken from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. The model is implemented as open-source software, integrated into the treatSens package for the R statistical programming language. © 2016 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
| S-EPMC5084780 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Evidence for the effect of weight loss on coronary heart disease (CHD) or mortality has been mixed. The effect estimates can be confounded due to undiagnosed diseases that may affect weight loss.We used data from the Nurses' Health Study to estimate the 26-year risk of CHD under several hypothetical weight loss strategies. We applied the parametric g-formula and implemented a novel sensitivity analysis for unmeasured confounding due to undiagnosed disease by imposing a lag time for the effect of weight loss on chronic disease. Several sensitivity analyses were conducted.The estimated 26-year risk of CHD did not change under weight loss strategies using lag times from 0 to 18 years. For a 6-year lag time, the risk ratios of CHD for weight loss compared with no weight loss ranged from 1.00 (0.99, 1.02) to 1.02 (0.99, 1.05) for different degrees of weight loss with and without restricting the weight loss strategy to participants with no major chronic disease. Similarly, no protective effect of weight loss was estimated for mortality risk. In contrast, we estimated a protective effect of weight loss on risk of type 2 diabetes.We estimated that maintaining or losing weight after becoming overweight or obese does not reduce the risk of CHD or death in this cohort of middle-age US women. Unmeasured confounding, measurement error, and model misspecification are possible explanations but these did not prevent us from estimating a beneficial effect of weight loss on diabetes.
| S-EPMC5177988 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Uncontrolled confounding in observational studies gives rise to biased effect estimates. Sensitivity analysis techniques can be useful in assessing the magnitude of these biases. In this paper, we use the potential outcomes framework to derive a general class of sensitivity-analysis formulas for outcomes, treatments, and measured and unmeasured confounding variables that may be categorical or continuous. We give results for additive, risk-ratio and odds-ratio scales. We show that these results encompass a number of more specific sensitivity-analysis methods in the statistics and epidemiology literature. The applicability, usefulness, and limits of the bias-adjustment formulas are discussed. We illustrate the sensitivity-analysis techniques that follow from our results by applying them to 3 different studies. The bias formulas are particularly simple and easy to use in settings in which the unmeasured confounding variable is binary with constant effect on the outcome across treatment levels.
| S-EPMC3073860 | biostudies-literature