Harton Joanna, Mamtani Ronac, Mitra Nandita, Hubbard Rebecca A
Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol. 2021 Jun;21:169-187. doi: 10.1007/s10742-020-00219-3. Epub 2020 Sep 10.
As the use of electronic health records (EHR) to estimate treatment effects has become widespread, concern about bias introduced by error in EHR-derived covariates has also grown. While methods exist to address measurement error in individual covariates, little prior research has investigated the implications of using propensity scores for confounder control when the propensity scores are constructed from a combination of accurate and error-prone covariates. We reviewed approaches to account for error in propensity scores and used simulation studies to compare their performance. These comparisons were conducted across a range of scenarios featuring variation in outcome type, validation sample size, main sample size, strength of confounding, and structure of the error in the mismeasured covariate. We then applied these approaches to a real-world EHR-based comparative effectiveness study of alternative treatments for metastatic bladder cancer. This head-to-head comparison of measurement error correction methods in the context of a propensity score-adjusted analysis demonstrated that multiple imputation for propensity scores performs best when the outcome is continuous and regression calibration-based methods perform best when the outcome is binary.
随着利用电子健康记录(EHR)来估计治疗效果的做法变得普遍,对EHR衍生协变量中的误差所引入的偏差的担忧也与日俱增。虽然存在处理单个协变量测量误差的方法,但此前很少有研究探讨当倾向得分由准确和易出错的协变量组合构建时,使用倾向得分进行混杂因素控制的影响。我们回顾了处理倾向得分误差的方法,并通过模拟研究比较它们的性能。这些比较是在一系列场景中进行的,这些场景的特征包括结局类型差异、验证样本量、主要样本量、混杂强度以及测量错误协变量中的误差结构。然后,我们将这些方法应用于一项基于EHR的转移性膀胱癌替代治疗的真实世界比较有效性研究。在倾向得分调整分析的背景下对测量误差校正方法进行的这种直接比较表明,当结局为连续型时,倾向得分多重插补表现最佳,而当结局为二分类时,基于回归校准的方法表现最佳。