在重组带状疱疹疫苗安全性研究中使用双阴性对照来调整健康用户偏差。

IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH American journal of epidemiology Pub Date : 2024-11-26 DOI:10.1093/aje/kwae439
Kendrick Li, Iris Emerman, Andrea J Cook, Bruce H Fireman, Maria Sundaram, Hung-Fu X Tseng, Eric S Weintraub, Onchee Yu, Jennifer L Nelson, Xu Shi
{"title":"在重组带状疱疹疫苗安全性研究中使用双阴性对照来调整健康用户偏差。","authors":"Kendrick Li, Iris Emerman, Andrea J Cook, Bruce H Fireman, Maria Sundaram, Hung-Fu X Tseng, Eric S Weintraub, Onchee Yu, Jennifer L Nelson, Xu Shi","doi":"10.1093/aje/kwae439","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Unmeasured confounding is a major concern in many epidemiologic studies that are not randomized. Negative control methods can detect and reduce confounding by leveraging the proxies of the unmeasured confounders, including negative control outcomes (NCO) and exposures (NCE). An NCO is presumably unaffected by the exposure of interest but would be associated with unmeasured confounders; an NCE presumably does not affect the outcome of interest but would be associated with unmeasured confounders. A recently proposed double negative control method leverages both NCO and NCE for unmeasured confounding bias. To demonstrate this relatively new methodology in pharmacoepidemiologic studies, we re-analyzed data from a prior safety study of Recombinant Zoster Vaccine (RZV). The prior study compared risk of safety outcomes of RZV versus unvaccinated comparators, using logistic regression with propensity score adjustment. We identified NCOs and NCEs that could be used to adjust for unmeasured confounding bias that could arise if RZV recipients are incomparable to the comparators due to unmeasured factors. The double negative control analysis yielded relative risk estimates slightly closer to 1.0 than those reported previously, providing additional evidence of RZV safety that is less vulnerable to unmeasured confounding.</p>","PeriodicalId":7472,"journal":{"name":"American journal of epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Using Double Negative Controls to Adjust for Healthy User Bias in a Recombinant Zoster Vaccine Safety Study.\",\"authors\":\"Kendrick Li, Iris Emerman, Andrea J Cook, Bruce H Fireman, Maria Sundaram, Hung-Fu X Tseng, Eric S Weintraub, Onchee Yu, Jennifer L Nelson, Xu Shi\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/aje/kwae439\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Unmeasured confounding is a major concern in many epidemiologic studies that are not randomized. Negative control methods can detect and reduce confounding by leveraging the proxies of the unmeasured confounders, including negative control outcomes (NCO) and exposures (NCE). An NCO is presumably unaffected by the exposure of interest but would be associated with unmeasured confounders; an NCE presumably does not affect the outcome of interest but would be associated with unmeasured confounders. A recently proposed double negative control method leverages both NCO and NCE for unmeasured confounding bias. To demonstrate this relatively new methodology in pharmacoepidemiologic studies, we re-analyzed data from a prior safety study of Recombinant Zoster Vaccine (RZV). The prior study compared risk of safety outcomes of RZV versus unvaccinated comparators, using logistic regression with propensity score adjustment. We identified NCOs and NCEs that could be used to adjust for unmeasured confounding bias that could arise if RZV recipients are incomparable to the comparators due to unmeasured factors. The double negative control analysis yielded relative risk estimates slightly closer to 1.0 than those reported previously, providing additional evidence of RZV safety that is less vulnerable to unmeasured confounding.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7472,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of epidemiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwae439\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwae439","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

未测量的混杂因素是许多非随机流行病学研究的主要问题。阴性对照方法可以利用未测量混杂因素的替代物(包括阴性对照结果(NCO)和暴露(NCE))来检测和减少混杂。负对照结果可能不受相关暴露的影响,但与未测量的混杂因素有关;负对照暴露可能不影响相关结果,但与未测量的混杂因素有关。最近提出的一种双阴性对照方法利用 NCO 和 NCE 来消除未测量的混杂偏差。为了在药物流行病学研究中展示这种相对较新的方法,我们重新分析了之前一项重组带状疱疹疫苗(RZV)安全性研究的数据。之前的研究采用了带有倾向评分调整的逻辑回归方法,比较了 RZV 与未接种疫苗的比较者的安全结果风险。我们确定了可用于调整未测量混杂偏差的 NCOs 和 NCEs,如果 RZV 接种者由于未测量因素而无法与对比者相比,则可能会产生混杂偏差。双阴性对照分析得出的相对风险估计值比之前报告的略微接近 1.0,为 RZV 的安全性提供了更多证据,且不易受到未测量混杂因素的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Using Double Negative Controls to Adjust for Healthy User Bias in a Recombinant Zoster Vaccine Safety Study.

Unmeasured confounding is a major concern in many epidemiologic studies that are not randomized. Negative control methods can detect and reduce confounding by leveraging the proxies of the unmeasured confounders, including negative control outcomes (NCO) and exposures (NCE). An NCO is presumably unaffected by the exposure of interest but would be associated with unmeasured confounders; an NCE presumably does not affect the outcome of interest but would be associated with unmeasured confounders. A recently proposed double negative control method leverages both NCO and NCE for unmeasured confounding bias. To demonstrate this relatively new methodology in pharmacoepidemiologic studies, we re-analyzed data from a prior safety study of Recombinant Zoster Vaccine (RZV). The prior study compared risk of safety outcomes of RZV versus unvaccinated comparators, using logistic regression with propensity score adjustment. We identified NCOs and NCEs that could be used to adjust for unmeasured confounding bias that could arise if RZV recipients are incomparable to the comparators due to unmeasured factors. The double negative control analysis yielded relative risk estimates slightly closer to 1.0 than those reported previously, providing additional evidence of RZV safety that is less vulnerable to unmeasured confounding.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
American journal of epidemiology
American journal of epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
221
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Epidemiology is the oldest and one of the premier epidemiologic journals devoted to the publication of empirical research findings, opinion pieces, and methodological developments in the field of epidemiologic research. It is a peer-reviewed journal aimed at both fellow epidemiologists and those who use epidemiologic data, including public health workers and clinicians.
期刊最新文献
All-Cause Mortality and 1990-1991 Gulf War Service within the Millennium Cohort Study (2001-2021). Using Double Negative Controls to Adjust for Healthy User Bias in a Recombinant Zoster Vaccine Safety Study. Modern Sources of Controls in Case-Control Studies. Editorial consultants 1. Characterizing state-level structural cisheterosexism trajectories using sequence and cluster analysis, 1996-2016, 50 U.S. states and Washington, D.C., and associations with health status and healthcare outcomes.
×
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