Methods to Adjust for Confounding in Test-Negative Design COVID-19 Effectiveness Studies: Simulation Study.

IF 2 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES JMIR Formative Research Pub Date : 2025-01-27 DOI:10.2196/58981
Elizabeth Ak Rowley, Patrick K Mitchell, Duck-Hye Yang, Ned Lewis, Brian E Dixon, Gabriela Vazquez-Benitez, William F Fadel, Inih J Essien, Allison L Naleway, Edward Stenehjem, Toan C Ong, Manjusha Gaglani, Karthik Natarajan, Peter Embi, Ryan E Wiegand, Ruth Link-Gelles, Mark W Tenforde, Bruce Fireman
{"title":"Methods to Adjust for Confounding in Test-Negative Design COVID-19 Effectiveness Studies: Simulation Study.","authors":"Elizabeth Ak Rowley, Patrick K Mitchell, Duck-Hye Yang, Ned Lewis, Brian E Dixon, Gabriela Vazquez-Benitez, William F Fadel, Inih J Essien, Allison L Naleway, Edward Stenehjem, Toan C Ong, Manjusha Gaglani, Karthik Natarajan, Peter Embi, Ryan E Wiegand, Ruth Link-Gelles, Mark W Tenforde, Bruce Fireman","doi":"10.2196/58981","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Real-world COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies are investigating exposures of increasing complexity accounting for time since vaccination. These studies require methods that adjust for the confounding that arises when morbidities and demographics are associated with vaccination and the risk of outcome events. Methods based on propensity scores (PS) are well-suited to this when the exposure is dichotomous, but present challenges when the exposure is multinomial.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This simulation study aimed to investigate alternative methods to adjust for confounding in VE studies that have a test-negative design.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adjustment for a disease risk score (DRS) is compared with multivariable logistic regression. Both stratification on the DRS and direct covariate adjustment of the DRS are examined. Multivariable logistic regression with all the covariates and with a limited subset of key covariates is considered. The performance of VE estimators is evaluated across a multinomial vaccination exposure in simulated datasets.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Bias in VE estimates from multivariable models ranged from -5.3% to 6.1% across 4 levels of vaccination. Standard errors of VE estimates were unbiased, and 95% coverage probabilities were attained in most scenarios. The lowest coverage in the multivariable scenarios was 93.7% (95% CI 92.2%-95.2%) and occurred in the multivariable model with key covariates, while the highest coverage in the multivariable scenarios was 95.3% (95% CI 94.0%-96.6%) and occurred in the multivariable model with all covariates. Bias in VE estimates from DRS-adjusted models was low, ranging from -2.2% to 4.2%. However, the DRS-adjusted models underestimated the standard errors of VE estimates, with coverage sometimes below the 95% level. The lowest coverage in the DRS scenarios was 87.8% (95% CI 85.8%-89.8%) and occurred in the direct adjustment for the DRS model. The highest coverage in the DRS scenarios was 94.8% (95% CI 93.4%-96.2%) and occurred in the model that stratified on DRS. Although variation in the performance of VE estimates occurred across modeling strategies, variation in performance was also present across exposure groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, models using a DRS to adjust for confounding performed adequately but not as well as the multivariable models that adjusted for covariates individually.</p>","PeriodicalId":14841,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Formative Research","volume":"9 ","pages":"e58981"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11811671/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Formative Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/58981","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Real-world COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies are investigating exposures of increasing complexity accounting for time since vaccination. These studies require methods that adjust for the confounding that arises when morbidities and demographics are associated with vaccination and the risk of outcome events. Methods based on propensity scores (PS) are well-suited to this when the exposure is dichotomous, but present challenges when the exposure is multinomial.

Objective: This simulation study aimed to investigate alternative methods to adjust for confounding in VE studies that have a test-negative design.

Methods: Adjustment for a disease risk score (DRS) is compared with multivariable logistic regression. Both stratification on the DRS and direct covariate adjustment of the DRS are examined. Multivariable logistic regression with all the covariates and with a limited subset of key covariates is considered. The performance of VE estimators is evaluated across a multinomial vaccination exposure in simulated datasets.

Results: Bias in VE estimates from multivariable models ranged from -5.3% to 6.1% across 4 levels of vaccination. Standard errors of VE estimates were unbiased, and 95% coverage probabilities were attained in most scenarios. The lowest coverage in the multivariable scenarios was 93.7% (95% CI 92.2%-95.2%) and occurred in the multivariable model with key covariates, while the highest coverage in the multivariable scenarios was 95.3% (95% CI 94.0%-96.6%) and occurred in the multivariable model with all covariates. Bias in VE estimates from DRS-adjusted models was low, ranging from -2.2% to 4.2%. However, the DRS-adjusted models underestimated the standard errors of VE estimates, with coverage sometimes below the 95% level. The lowest coverage in the DRS scenarios was 87.8% (95% CI 85.8%-89.8%) and occurred in the direct adjustment for the DRS model. The highest coverage in the DRS scenarios was 94.8% (95% CI 93.4%-96.2%) and occurred in the model that stratified on DRS. Although variation in the performance of VE estimates occurred across modeling strategies, variation in performance was also present across exposure groups.

Conclusions: Overall, models using a DRS to adjust for confounding performed adequately but not as well as the multivariable models that adjusted for covariates individually.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
相关文献
FDG-avid sclerotic bone metastases in breast cancer patients: a PET/CT case series
IF 2.6 4区 医学Annals of Nuclear MedicinePub Date : 2011-09-28 DOI: 10.1007/s12149-011-0538-3
Bas B. Koolen, Erik Vegt, Emiel J. Th. Rutgers, Wouter V. Vogel, Marcel P. M. Stokkel, Cornelis A. Hoefnagel, Annemarie Fioole-Bruining, Marie-Jeanne T. F. D. Vrancken Peeters, Renato A. Valdés Olmos
A comparative evaluation of cone beam CT and micro-CT on trabecular bone structures in the human mandible.
IF 3.3 2区 医学Dento maxillo facial radiologyPub Date : 2013-01-01 DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20130145
J Van Dessel, Y Huang, M Depypere, I Rubira-Bullen, F Maes, R Jacobs
Cone cracking in human bone: A CT case review series
IF 1.1 Forensic ImagingPub Date : 2022-06-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.fri.2022.200510
Angi M. Christensen, J. Rickman
来源期刊
JMIR Formative Research
JMIR Formative Research Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
9.10%
发文量
579
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
A Classroom-Based Intervention for Reducing Sedentary Behavior and Improving Spinal Health: Pragmatic Stepped-Wedge Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial. Development and Implementation of MyPainHub, a Web-Based Resource for People With Musculoskeletal Conditions and Their Health Care Professionals: Mixed Methods Study. Effects of Missing Data on Heart Rate Variability Measured From A Smartwatch: Exploratory Observational Study. Evaluation of Financial Support Workshops for Patients Under State Pension Age With Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Survey Study. Improving the User Interface and Guiding the Development of Effective Training Material for a Clinical Research Recruitment and Retention Dashboard: Usability Testing Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1