ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026
Methods for incorporating test result information within the high-dimensional propensity score framework: application in UK electronic health record data.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGrowing availability of laboratory test result information in large healthcare databases presents opportunities to improve confounding control. Whilst information on the ordering of tests and the resulting continuous test values are available, their optimal integration into data-driven confounding control strategies like the high-dimensional propensity score (HDPS) remains unclear.
methodsWe propose methods to incorporate test-related data into HDPS, addressing key concerns around data quality and missing data. We illustrate these approaches using UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD data comparing COPD-specific mortality in new-users of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs). Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using Cox models weighted by inverse HDPS. Integration of 35 blood-test values was achieved via biologically informed cut-offs and using a missing-indicator approach for continuous data. Results were benchmarked against a HDPS model derived from clinical, referral, and prescription data dimensions.
resultsAmong 733,885 new PPI and 124,410 H2RA users, the adjusted HR for PPI use and COPD mortality was 1.36 (95% CI: 1.14-1.64) in the primary HDPS analysis. Incorporating test-requested data and continuous blood test values attenuated estimates towards the expected null association (HR 1.24; 95% CI: 1.02-1.56). Of the 500 HDPS covariates selected in the final model, 46% were derived from test-related data.
conclusionWe empirically evaluated methods for incorporating laboratory test results into the HDPS framework, demonstrating their potential to reduce residual confounding in UK EHR studies. We propose principled approaches for incorporating laboratory test result data into data-driven confounding control strategies. Results from our case study highlight the potential for these data to reduce residual confounding in UK EHR studies. When available, test information should be considered within HDPS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.