• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

评估医生处方偏好作为中等和小样本量比较效果研究中的工具变量的性能:一项模拟研究。

Assessing the performance of physician's prescribing preference as an instrumental variable in comparative effectiveness research with moderate and small sample sizes: a simulation study.

作者信息

Zhang Lisong, Lewsey Jim, McAllister David A

机构信息

Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK.

School of Health and Well-being, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8TB, UK.

出版信息

J Comp Eff Res. 2024 May;13(5):e230044. doi: 10.57264/cer-2023-0044. Epub 2024 Apr 3.

DOI:10.57264/cer-2023-0044
PMID:38567966
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11036905/
Abstract

This simulation study is to assess the utility of physician's prescribing preference (PPP) as an instrumental variable for moderate and smaller sample sizes. We designed a simulation study to imitate a comparative effectiveness research under different sample sizes. We compare the performance of instrumental variable (IV) and non-IV approaches using two-stage least squares (2SLS) and ordinary least squares (OLS) methods, respectively. Further, we test the performance of different forms of proxies for PPP as an IV. The percent bias of 2SLS is around approximately 20%, while the percent bias of OLS is close to 60%. The sample size is not associated with the level of bias for the PPP IV approach. Irrespective of sample size, the PPP IV approach leads to less biased estimates of treatment effectiveness than OLS adjusting for known confounding only. Particularly for smaller sample sizes, we recommend constructing PPP from long prescribing histories to improve statistical power.

摘要

本模拟研究旨在评估医生处方偏好(PPP)作为中等及较小样本量的工具变量的效用。我们设计了一项模拟研究,以模仿不同样本量下的比较效果研究。我们分别使用两阶段最小二乘法(2SLS)和普通最小二乘法(OLS)比较工具变量(IV)和非IV方法的性能。此外,我们测试了PPP作为IV的不同形式代理的性能。2SLS的偏差百分比约为20%,而OLS的偏差百分比接近60%。样本量与PPP IV方法的偏差水平无关。无论样本量如何,PPP IV方法比仅针对已知混杂因素进行调整的OLS能产生偏差更小的治疗效果估计。特别是对于较小的样本量,我们建议从长期处方历史中构建PPP以提高统计功效。

相似文献

1
Assessing the performance of physician's prescribing preference as an instrumental variable in comparative effectiveness research with moderate and small sample sizes: a simulation study.评估医生处方偏好作为中等和小样本量比较效果研究中的工具变量的性能:一项模拟研究。
J Comp Eff Res. 2024 May;13(5):e230044. doi: 10.57264/cer-2023-0044. Epub 2024 Apr 3.
2
Comparative effectiveness research considered methodological insights from simulation studies in physician's prescribing preference.比较有效性研究考虑了模拟研究在医生处方偏好方面的方法学见解。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Aug;148:74-80. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.04.020. Epub 2022 Apr 18.
3
Comparing the performance of two-stage residual inclusion methods when using physician's prescribing preference as an instrumental variable: unmeasured confounding and noncollapsibility.在将医生的处方偏好用作工具变量时比较两阶段残差纳入方法的性能:未测量的混杂因素和不可折叠性。
J Comp Eff Res. 2024 May;13(5):e230085. doi: 10.57264/cer-2023-0085. Epub 2024 Apr 3.
4
Evaluating different physician's prescribing preference based instrumental variables in two primary care databases: a study of inhaled long-acting beta2-agonist use and the risk of myocardial infarction.在两个初级保健数据库中基于工具变量评估不同医生的处方偏好:一项关于吸入长效β2受体激动剂使用与心肌梗死风险的研究。
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2016 Mar;25 Suppl 1:132-41. doi: 10.1002/pds.3860.
5
Sample size importantly limits the usefulness of instrumental variable methods, depending on instrument strength and level of confounding.样本量对工具变量法的有用性有重要影响,这取决于工具的强度和混杂程度。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Nov;67(11):1258-64. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.05.019. Epub 2014 Aug 12.
6
Instrumental variable applications using nursing home prescribing preferences in comparative effectiveness research.在比较效果研究中使用养老院处方偏好的工具变量应用。
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2014 Aug;23(8):830-8. doi: 10.1002/pds.3611. Epub 2014 Mar 24.
7
Evaluating possible confounding by prescriber in comparative effectiveness research.在比较效果研究中评估开处方者可能造成的混杂因素。
Epidemiology. 2015 Mar;26(2):238-41. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000241.
8
Bias testing, bias correction, and confounder selection using an instrumental variable model.使用工具变量模型进行偏差测试、偏差校正和混杂因素选择。
Stat Med. 2020 Dec 20;39(29):4386-4404. doi: 10.1002/sim.8730. Epub 2020 Aug 27.
9
Assessing causal treatment effect estimation when using large observational datasets.使用大型观测数据集评估因果治疗效果估计。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Nov 14;19(1):207. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0858-x.
10
How does a local instrumental variable method perform across settings with instruments of differing strengths? A simulation study and an evaluation of emergency surgery.局部工具变量方法在具有不同强度工具的设置中表现如何?一项模拟研究和对急诊手术的评估。
Health Econ. 2023 Sep;32(9):2113-2126. doi: 10.1002/hec.4719. Epub 2023 Jun 11.

本文引用的文献

1
Varenicline versus nicotine replacement therapy for long-term smoking cessation: an observational study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.伐尼克兰与尼古丁替代疗法用于长期戒烟:一项使用临床实践研究数据库的观察性研究。
Health Technol Assess. 2020 Feb;24(9):1-46. doi: 10.3310/hta24090.
2
Instrumental variable analysis in the presence of unmeasured confounding.存在未测量混杂因素时的工具变量分析
Ann Transl Med. 2018 May;6(10):182. doi: 10.21037/atm.2018.03.37.
3
The effectiveness of varenicline versus nicotine replacement therapy on long-term smoking cessation in primary care: a prospective cohort study of electronic medical records.
在初级保健中,伐尼克兰与尼古丁替代疗法对长期戒烟效果的前瞻性队列研究:电子病历分析。
Int J Epidemiol. 2017 Dec 1;46(6):1948-1957. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyx109.
4
The proportion of all previous patients was a potential instrument for patients' actual prescriptions of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.所有既往患者的比例是患者实际开具非甾体抗炎药处方的一个潜在工具。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jan;69:96-106. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.008. Epub 2015 Sep 2.
5
Instrumental variable estimation in a survival context.生存背景下的工具变量估计
Epidemiology. 2015 May;26(3):402-10. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000262.
6
Sample size importantly limits the usefulness of instrumental variable methods, depending on instrument strength and level of confounding.样本量对工具变量法的有用性有重要影响,这取决于工具的强度和混杂程度。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Nov;67(11):1258-64. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.05.019. Epub 2014 Aug 12.
7
Instrumental variable methods for causal inference.工具变量法在因果推断中的应用。
Stat Med. 2014 Jun 15;33(13):2297-340. doi: 10.1002/sim.6128. Epub 2014 Mar 6.
8
Physicians' prescribing preferences were a potential instrument for patients' actual prescriptions of antidepressants.医生的处方偏好可能成为患者实际开出抗抑郁药处方的一个影响因素。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Dec;66(12):1386-96. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.06.008. Epub 2013 Sep 24.
9
Comparing adherence to two different HIV antiretroviral regimens: an instrumental variable analysis.比较两种不同的 HIV 抗逆转录病毒治疗方案的依从性:工具变量分析。
AIDS Behav. 2013 Jan;17(1):160-7. doi: 10.1007/s10461-012-0266-2.
10
Reducing bias in the assessment of treatment effectiveness: androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer.降低治疗效果评估中的偏倚:前列腺癌的雄激素剥夺疗法。
Med Care. 2012 May;50(5):374-80. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e318245a086.