Veridical Causal Inference using Propensity Score Methods for Comparative Effectiveness Research with Medical Claims.

IF 1.6 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology Pub Date : 2021-06-01 Epub Date: 2020-10-20 DOI:10.1007/s10742-020-00222-8
Ryan D Ross, Xu Shi, Megan E V Caram, Pheobe A Tsao, Paul Lin, Amy Bohnert, Min Zhang, Bhramar Mukherjee
{"title":"Veridical Causal Inference using Propensity Score Methods for Comparative Effectiveness Research with Medical Claims.","authors":"Ryan D Ross,&nbsp;Xu Shi,&nbsp;Megan E V Caram,&nbsp;Pheobe A Tsao,&nbsp;Paul Lin,&nbsp;Amy Bohnert,&nbsp;Min Zhang,&nbsp;Bhramar Mukherjee","doi":"10.1007/s10742-020-00222-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Medical insurance claims are becoming increasingly common data sources to answer a variety of questions in biomedical research. Although comprehensive in terms of longitudinal characterization of disease development and progression for a potentially large number of patients, population-based inference using these datasets require thoughtful modifications to sample selection and analytic strategies relative to other types of studies. Along with complex selection bias and missing data issues, claims-based studies are purely observational, which limits effective understanding and characterization of the treatment differences between groups being compared. All these issues contribute to a crisis in reproducibility and replication of comparative findings using medical claims. This paper offers practical guidance to the analytical process, demonstrates methods for estimating causal treatment effects with propensity score methods for several types of outcomes common to such studies, such as binary, count, time to event and longitudinally-varying measures, and also aims to increase transparency and reproducibility of reporting of results from these investigations. We provide an online version of the paper with readily implementable code for the entire analysis pipeline to serve as a guided tutorial for practitioners. The online version can be accessed at https://rydaro.github.io/. The analytic pipeline is illustrated using a sub-cohort of patients with advanced prostate cancer from the large Clinformatics TM Data Mart Database (OptumInsight, Eden Prairie, Minnesota), consisting of 73 million distinct private payer insurees from 2001-2016.</p>","PeriodicalId":45600,"journal":{"name":"Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10742-020-00222-8","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10742-020-00222-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/10/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Medical insurance claims are becoming increasingly common data sources to answer a variety of questions in biomedical research. Although comprehensive in terms of longitudinal characterization of disease development and progression for a potentially large number of patients, population-based inference using these datasets require thoughtful modifications to sample selection and analytic strategies relative to other types of studies. Along with complex selection bias and missing data issues, claims-based studies are purely observational, which limits effective understanding and characterization of the treatment differences between groups being compared. All these issues contribute to a crisis in reproducibility and replication of comparative findings using medical claims. This paper offers practical guidance to the analytical process, demonstrates methods for estimating causal treatment effects with propensity score methods for several types of outcomes common to such studies, such as binary, count, time to event and longitudinally-varying measures, and also aims to increase transparency and reproducibility of reporting of results from these investigations. We provide an online version of the paper with readily implementable code for the entire analysis pipeline to serve as a guided tutorial for practitioners. The online version can be accessed at https://rydaro.github.io/. The analytic pipeline is illustrated using a sub-cohort of patients with advanced prostate cancer from the large Clinformatics TM Data Mart Database (OptumInsight, Eden Prairie, Minnesota), consisting of 73 million distinct private payer insurees from 2001-2016.

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
用倾向评分法对医疗索赔有效性比较研究的实证因果推断。
医疗保险索赔正日益成为回答生物医学研究中各种问题的常见数据来源。尽管这些数据集对潜在的大量患者的疾病发展和进展进行了全面的纵向表征,但与其他类型的研究相比,基于人群的推断需要对样本选择和分析策略进行深思熟虑的修改。伴随着复杂的选择偏差和缺失数据问题,基于声明的研究纯粹是观察性的,这限制了对被比较组之间治疗差异的有效理解和表征。所有这些问题都造成了利用医疗索赔对比较结果进行再现和复制的危机。本文为分析过程提供了实用指导,展示了使用倾向评分方法估计因果治疗效果的方法,这些方法用于此类研究常见的几种结果类型,如二进制、计数、事件时间和纵向变化测量,并且还旨在提高这些调查结果报告的透明度和可重复性。我们提供论文的在线版本,其中包含整个分析管道的易于实现的代码,以作为实践者的指导教程。在线版本可访问https://rydaro.github.io/。该分析流程使用来自大型Clinformatics TM数据集市数据库(OptumInsight, Eden Prairie, Minnesota)的晚期前列腺癌患者亚队列进行说明,其中包括2001-2016年7300万不同的私人付款人保险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology
Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
6.70%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The journal reflects the multidisciplinary nature of the field of health services and outcomes research. It addresses the needs of multiple, interlocking communities, including methodologists in statistics, econometrics, social and behavioral sciences; designers and analysts of health policy and health services research projects; and health care providers and policy makers who need to properly understand and evaluate the results of published research. The journal strives to enhance the level of methodologic rigor in health services and outcomes research and contributes to the development of methodologic standards in the field. In pursuing its main objective, the journal also provides a meeting ground for researchers from a number of traditional disciplines and fosters the development of new quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods by statisticians, econometricians, health services researchers, and methodologists in other fields. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology publishes: Research papers on quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods; Case Studies describing applications of quantitative and qualitative methodology in health services and outcomes research; Review Articles synthesizing and popularizing methodologic developments; Tutorials; Articles on computational issues and software reviews; Book reviews; and Notices. Special issues will be devoted to papers presented at important workshops and conferences.
期刊最新文献
Limitations of the Inter-Unit Reliability: A Set of Practical Examples. Home- and community-based care in the new generation of Medicaid administrative data Entropy balancing versus vector-based kernel weighting for causal inference in categorical treatment settings A terminal trend model for longitudinal medical cost data and survival Multimodal mental state analysis
×
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