Joanna Harton, Ronac Mamtani, Nandita Mitra, Rebecca A Hubbard
{"title":"Bias Reduction Methods for Propensity Scores Estimated from Error-Prone EHR-Derived Covariates.","authors":"Joanna Harton, Ronac Mamtani, Nandita Mitra, Rebecca A Hubbard","doi":"10.1007/s10742-020-00219-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</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/s10742-020-00219-3","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10742-020-00219-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/9/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
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.
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.