Accounting for Potential Unmeasured Confounding in the Association between Influenza vaccination and COVID-19 Hospitalization: Sensitivity Analysis Using E-value Method.

Q3 Medicine Tanaffos Pub Date : 2022-03-01
Reza Sadeghi, Maryam Delavari Heravi, Ahmad Naghibzadeh-Tahami, Niloofar Ebrahim Abadi, Mahmoud Reza Masoodi, Minoo Mashayekhi, Maryam Mirzaei, Mohammad Aryaie
{"title":"Accounting for Potential Unmeasured Confounding in the Association between Influenza vaccination and COVID-19 Hospitalization: Sensitivity Analysis Using E-value Method.","authors":"Reza Sadeghi,&nbsp;Maryam Delavari Heravi,&nbsp;Ahmad Naghibzadeh-Tahami,&nbsp;Niloofar Ebrahim Abadi,&nbsp;Mahmoud Reza Masoodi,&nbsp;Minoo Mashayekhi,&nbsp;Maryam Mirzaei,&nbsp;Mohammad Aryaie","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Unmeasured confounding is the primary obstacle to causal inference in observational research. We aimed to illuminate the association between exposure to influenza vaccination (IV) within six months before contracting the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and COVID-19 hospitalization in relation to unmeasured confounding using the E-value method.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Information about 367 patients, 103 of whom (28.07 %) had received IV, and confounders included sex, age, occupation, cigarette smoking, opium, and comorbidities were collected. We estimated the interest association using the inverse probability weighted (IPW) method. There was no information on some potential unmeasured confounders, such as socioeconomic status. Therefore, we computed E-value as a sensitivity analysis, which is the minimum strength of unmeasured confounding to explain away an exposure-outcome association beyond the measured confounders completely.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>IPW denoted 1.12 (95% CI: 0.71 to 1.29) times greater risk of COVID-19 hospitalization in patients exposed to IV than in unexposed individuals. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that an E-value (95% CI) of 1.49 (1.90 to 2.15) is required to shift the RR and the corresponding confidence Interval (CI) lower and upper limits toward the null. Moreover, if they had been omitted, the most computed E-values for measured confounders were relatively larger than for unmeasured confounders.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>According to the context of the measured confounders, if they had been omitted, an E-value of 1.16 to 1.76, a weaker confounding could fully explain away the reported association, suggesting that no relationship exists between IV and COVID-19 hospitalization.</p>","PeriodicalId":22247,"journal":{"name":"Tanaffos","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/cd/0f/Tanaffos-21-330.PMC10073958.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tanaffos","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Unmeasured confounding is the primary obstacle to causal inference in observational research. We aimed to illuminate the association between exposure to influenza vaccination (IV) within six months before contracting the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and COVID-19 hospitalization in relation to unmeasured confounding using the E-value method.

Materials and methods: Information about 367 patients, 103 of whom (28.07 %) had received IV, and confounders included sex, age, occupation, cigarette smoking, opium, and comorbidities were collected. We estimated the interest association using the inverse probability weighted (IPW) method. There was no information on some potential unmeasured confounders, such as socioeconomic status. Therefore, we computed E-value as a sensitivity analysis, which is the minimum strength of unmeasured confounding to explain away an exposure-outcome association beyond the measured confounders completely.

Results: IPW denoted 1.12 (95% CI: 0.71 to 1.29) times greater risk of COVID-19 hospitalization in patients exposed to IV than in unexposed individuals. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that an E-value (95% CI) of 1.49 (1.90 to 2.15) is required to shift the RR and the corresponding confidence Interval (CI) lower and upper limits toward the null. Moreover, if they had been omitted, the most computed E-values for measured confounders were relatively larger than for unmeasured confounders.

Conclusion: According to the context of the measured confounders, if they had been omitted, an E-value of 1.16 to 1.76, a weaker confounding could fully explain away the reported association, suggesting that no relationship exists between IV and COVID-19 hospitalization.

Abstract Image

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
考虑流感疫苗接种与COVID-19住院之间潜在的未测量混杂因素:使用e值法进行敏感性分析
背景:在观察性研究中,未测量的混杂因素是因果推断的主要障碍。我们的目的是利用e值方法阐明在感染冠状病毒病(COVID-19)前6个月内接种流感疫苗(IV)与COVID-19住院治疗与未测量混淆之间的关系。材料与方法:收集367例患者的资料,其中静脉注射103例(28.07%),混杂因素包括性别、年龄、职业、吸烟、鸦片和合并症。我们使用逆概率加权(IPW)方法来估计利益关联。没有关于一些潜在的无法测量的混杂因素的信息,比如社会经济地位。因此,我们计算了e值作为敏感性分析,它是解释完全超出测量混杂因素的暴露-结果关联的未测量混杂因素的最小强度。结果:IPW表明,暴露于静脉注射的患者的COVID-19住院风险是未暴露者的1.12倍(95% CI: 0.71至1.29)。敏感性分析表明,需要e值(95% CI)为1.49(1.90至2.15)才能使RR和相应的置信区间(CI)下限和上限向零偏移。此外,如果省略它们,则测量混杂因素的最计算e值相对大于未测量混杂因素。结论:根据测量混杂因素的背景,如果忽略它们,e值为1.16至1.76,较弱的混杂因素可以完全解释报告的关联,表明静脉注射与COVID-19住院之间不存在关系。
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
Tanaffos
Tanaffos Medicine-Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Oncologic Emergencies in Lung Cancer Patients and the Effects of SARS-COV2 Pandemic. Relationship between Underlying Diseases with Morbidity and Mortality in Patients with COVID-19. Status of Inflammatory and Coagulation Factors in COVID-19 and Its Relation with the Disease Severity. Tracheal Lobular Capillary Hemangioma: A Rare Localization. Tracheal Small Cell Carcinoma in a 52-year-old Male: A Case Report.
×
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