Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25667819›Full record

ArticleEpidemiologic methods2014

Model Misspecification When Excluding Instrumental Variables From PS Models in Settings Where Instruments Modify the Effects of Covariates on Treatment.

Richard Wyss, Alan R Ellis, Mark Lunt, M Alan Brookhart, Robert J Glynn, Til Stürmer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epidemiologic methods, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Richard WyssDepartment of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Alan R EllisCecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Mark LuntArthritis Research UK Epidemiology Unit, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Institute of Inflammation and Repair, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom.
M Alan BrookhartDepartment of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Robert J GlynnDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Til StürmerDepartment of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Funding

Propensity Scores and Preventive Drug Use in the ElderlyR01AG023178 · NIA · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI STURMER, TIL · 2005 to 2014
$2.7M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG023178
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Theory and simulations show that variables affecting the outcome only through exposure, known as instrumental variables (IVs), should be excluded from propensity score (PS) models. In pharmacoepidemiologic studies based on automated healthcare databases, researchers will sometimes use a single PS model to control for confounding when evaluating the effect of a treatment on multiple outcomes. Because these "full" models are not constructed with a specific outcome in mind, they will usually contain a large number of IVs for any individual study or outcome. If researchers subsequently decide to evaluate a subset of the outcomes in more detail, they can construct reduced "outcome-specific" models that exclude IVs for the particular study. Accurate estimates of PSs that do not condition on IVs, however, can be compromised when simply excluding instruments from the full PS model. This misspecification may have a negligible impact on effect estimates in many settings, but is likely to be more pronounced for situations where instruments modify the effects of covariates on treatment (instrument-confounder interactions). In studies evaluating drugs during early dissemination, the effects of covariates on treatment are likely modified over calendar time and IV-confounder interaction effects on treatment are likely to exist. In these settings, refitting more flexible PS models after excluding IVs and IV-confounder interactions can work well. The authors propose an alternative method based on the concept of marginalization that can be used to remove the negative effects of controlling for IVs and IV-confounder interactions without having to refit the full PS model. This method fits the full PS model, including IVs and IV-confounder interactions, but marginalizes over values of the instruments. Fitting more flexible PS models after excluding IVs or using the full model to marginalize over IVs can prevent model misspecification along with the negative effects of balancing instruments in certain settings.

Identifiers

PMID25667819
PMCPMC4319188

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.