Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37284516›Full record

ArticleClinical epidemiology2023

Controlling for Differential Regression-To-The-Mean via Propensity Scores: A Simulation Study.

Chase D Latour, Leah J McGrath, Mary Clouser, Carrie Nielson, Ying Yu, Akhila Balasubramanian, Alexander Breskin, M Alan Brookhart

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Chase D LatourDepartment of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9362-2516
Leah J McGrathTarget RWE, Durham, NC, USA.
Mary ClouserCenter for Observational Research, Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6929-4412
Carrie NielsonCenter for Observational Research, Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
Ying YuTarget RWE, Durham, NC, USA.
Akhila BalasubramanianCenter for Observational Research, Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
Alexander BreskinDepartment of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
M Alan BrookhartTarget RWE, Durham, NC, USA.
Amgen (United States) · USTarget (United States) · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Regression-to-the-mean (RTM) is a statistical phenomenon that may occur in epidemiologic studies where inclusion in the study cohort is contingent upon experiencing a laboratory/clinical measurement beyond a defined threshold. When differential across treatment groups, RTM could bias the final study estimate. This poses substantial challenges in observational studies that index patients upon experiencing extreme laboratory or clinical values. Our objective was to investigate propensity score-based methods as a tool for mitigating this source of bias via simulation. Methods: We simulated a noninterventional comparative effectiveness study, comparing treatment with romiplostim to standard-of-care therapies for immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), a disease characterized by low platelet counts. Platelet counts were generated from normal distributions according to the underlying ITP severity, a strong confounder of treatment and outcome. Patients were assigned treatment probabilities based upon ITP severity, which created varied levels of differential and non-differential RTM. Treatments were compared via the difference in median platelet counts during 23 weeks of follow-up. We calculated four summary metrics of the platelet counts measured prior to cohort entry and built six propensity score models to adjust for those variables. We adjusted for these summary metrics using inverse probability of treatment weights. Results: Across all simulated scenarios, propensity score adjustment reduced bias and increased precision of the treatment effect estimator. Adjusting for combinations of the summary metrics was most effective at reducing bias. Adjusting for the mean of prior platelet counts or the difference between the cohort-qualifying platelet count and the largest prior count eliminated the most bias when assessed individually. Conclusion: These results suggest that differential RTM could be reasonably addressed by propensity score models with summaries of historical laboratory values. This approach can be easily applied to any comparative effectiveness or safety study, though investigators should carefully consider the best summary metric for their data.

Indexed as

bias correctionimmune thrombocytopeniapropensity scoresreal-world evidence

Identifiers

PMID37284516
PMCPMC10241179
OpenAlexW4379052500

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.