Dataset Information

Confounding adjustment methods in longitudinal observational data with a time-varying treatment: a mapping review.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To adjust for confounding in observational data, researchers use propensity score matching (PSM), but more advanced methods might be required when dealing with longitudinal data and time-varying treatments as PSM might not include possible changes that occurred over time. This study aims to explore which confounding adjustment methods have been used in longitudinal observational data to estimate a treatment effect and identify potential inappropriate use of PSM.

Design

Mapping review.

Data sources

We searched PubMed, from inception up to January 2021, for studies in which a treatment was evaluated using longitudinal observational data.

Eligibility criteria

Methodological, non-medical and cost-effectiveness papers were excluded, as were non-English studies and studies that did not study a treatment effect.

Data extraction and synthesis

Studies were categorised based on time of treatment: at baseline (interventions performed at start of follow-up) or time-varying (interventions received asynchronously during follow-up) and sorted based on publication year, time of treatment and confounding adjustment method. Cumulative time series plots were used to investigate the use of different methods over time. No risk-of-bias assessment was performed as it was not applicable.

Results

In total, 764 studies were included that met the eligibility criteria. PSM (165/201, 82%) and inverse probability weighting (IPW; 154/502, 31%) were most common for studies with a treatment at baseline (n=201) and time-varying treatment (n=502), respectively. Of the 502 studies with a time-varying treatment, 123 (25%) used PSM with baseline covariates, which might be inappropriate. In the past 5 years, the proportion of studies with a time-varying treatment that used PSM over IPW increased.

Conclusions

PSM is the most frequently used method to correct for confounding in longitudinal observational data. In studies with a time-varying treatment, PSM was potentially inappropriately used in 25% of studies. Confounding adjustment methods designed to deal with a time-varying treatment and time-varying confounding are available, but were only used in 45% of the studies with a time-varying treatment.

SUBMITTER: Wijn SRW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8935170 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Confounding adjustment methods in longitudinal observational data with a time-varying treatment: a mapping review.

Wijn Stan R W SRW Rovers Maroeska M MM Hannink Gerjon G

BMJ open 20220318 3

<h4>Objectives</h4>To adjust for confounding in observational data, researchers use propensity score matching (PSM), but more advanced methods might be required when dealing with longitudinal data and time-varying treatments as PSM might not include possible changes that occurred over time. This study aims to explore which confounding adjustment methods have been used in longitudinal observational data to estimate a treatment effect and identify potential inappropriate use of PSM.<h4>Design</h4> ...[more]

PMID: 35304403

Similar Datasets

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

Confounding adjustment methods in longitudinal observational data with a time-varying treatment: a mapping review.

Objectives

Design

Data sources

Eligibility criteria

Data extraction and synthesis

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Confounding adjustment methods in longitudinal observational data with a time-varying treatment: a mapping review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets