Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38798915›Full record

ArticleClinical epidemiology2024

A Principled Approach to Characterize and Analyze Partially Observed Confounder Data from Electronic Health Records.

Janick Weberpals, Sudha R Raman, Pamela A Shaw, Hana Lee, Massimiliano Russo, Bradley G Hammill, Sengwee Toh, John G Connolly, Kimberly J Dandreo, Fang Tian and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

15 authors.

Janick WeberpalsDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0404-7394
Sudha R RamanDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Pamela A ShawBiostatistics Division, Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Hana LeeOffice of Biostatistics, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA.
Massimiliano RussoDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Bradley G HammillDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Sengwee TohDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5160-0810
John G ConnollyDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Kimberly J DandreoDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2332-1969
Fang TianOffice of Surveillance and Epidemiology, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA.
Wei LiuOffice of Surveillance and Epidemiology, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA.
Jie LiOffice of Surveillance and Epidemiology, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA.
José J Hernández-MuñozOffice of Surveillance and Epidemiology, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2553-3159
Robert J GlynnDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Rishi J DesaiDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0299-7273

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Partially observed confounder data pose challenges to the statistical analysis of electronic health records (EHR) and systematic assessments of potentially underlying missingness mechanisms are lacking. We aimed to provide a principled approach to empirically characterize missing data processes and investigate performance of analytic methods. Methods: Three empirical sub-cohorts of diabetic SGLT2 or DPP4-inhibitor initiators with complete information on HbA1c, BMI and smoking as confounders of interest (COI) formed the basis of data simulation under a plasmode framework. A true null treatment effect, including the COI in the outcome generation model, and four missingness mechanisms for the COI were simulated: completely at random (MCAR), at random (MAR), and two not at random (MNAR) mechanisms, where missingness was dependent on an unmeasured confounder and on the value of the COI itself. We evaluated the ability of three groups of diagnostics to differentiate between mechanisms: 1)-differences in characteristics between patients with or without the observed COI (using averaged standardized mean differences [ASMD]), 2)-predictive ability of the missingness indicator based on observed covariates, and 3)-association of the missingness indicator with the outcome. We then compared analytic methods including "complete case", inverse probability weighting, single and multiple imputation in their ability to recover true treatment effects. Results: The diagnostics successfully identified characteristic patterns of simulated missingness mechanisms. For MAR, but not MCAR, the patient characteristics showed substantial differences (median ASMD 0.20 vs 0.05) and consequently, discrimination of the prediction models for missingness was also higher (0.59 vs 0.50). For MNAR, but not MAR or MCAR, missingness was significantly associated with the outcome even in models adjusting for other observed covariates. Comparing analytic methods, multiple imputation using a random forest algorithm resulted in the lowest root-mean-squared-error. Conclusion: Principled diagnostics provided reliable insights into missingness mechanisms. When assumptions allow, multiple imputation with nonparametric models could help reduce bias.

Indexed as

analyticsdiagnosticselectronic health recordsimputationmissing data

Identifiers

PMID38798915
PMCPMC11127690

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.