Quantitative bias analysis in practice: review of software for regression with unmeasured confounding

被引:4
|
作者
Kawabata, Emily [1 ,2 ]
Tilling, Kate [1 ,2 ]
Groenwold, Rolf H. H. [3 ,4 ]
Hughes, Rachael A. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Bristol, MRC Integrat Epidemiol Unit, Bristol, England
[2] Univ Bristol, Bristol Med Sch, Populat Hlth Sci, Bristol, England
[3] Leiden Univ, Dept Clin Epidemiol, Med Ctr, Leiden, Netherlands
[4] Leiden Univ, Dept Biomed Data Sci, Med Ctr, Leiden, Netherlands
基金
英国惠康基金; 英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
Causal inference; Quantitative bias analysis; Sensitivity analysis; Software review; Unmeasured confounding; CARLO SENSITIVITY-ANALYSIS; EXTERNAL ADJUSTMENT; IMPACT; PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY; ASSUMPTIONS; DEFINITION; OBESITY; GROWTH;
D O I
10.1186/s12874-023-01906-8
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background Failure to appropriately account for unmeasured confounding may lead to erroneous conclusions. Quantitative bias analysis (QBA) can be used to quantify the potential impact of unmeasured confounding or how much unmeasured confounding would be needed to change a study's conclusions. Currently, QBA methods are not routinely implemented, partly due to a lack of knowledge about accessible software. Also, comparisons of QBA methods have focused on analyses with a binary outcome. Methods We conducted a systematic review of the latest developments in QBA software published between 2011 and 2021. Our inclusion criteria were software that did not require adaption (i.e., code changes) before application, was still available in 2022, and accompanied by documentation. Key properties of each software tool were identified. We provide a detailed description of programs applicable for a linear regression analysis, illustrate their application using two data examples and provide code to assist researchers in future use of these programs. Results Our review identified 21 programs with 62% created post 2016. All are implementations of a deterministic QBA with 81% available in the free software R. There are programs applicable when the analysis of interest is a regression of binary, continuous or survival outcomes, and for matched and mediation analyses. We identified five programs implementing differing QBAs for a continuous outcome: treatSens, causalsens, sensemakr, EValue, and konfound. When applied to one of our illustrative examples, causalsens incorrectly indicated sensitivity to unmeasured confounding whereas the other four programs indicated robustness. sensemakr performs the most detailed QBA and includes a benchmarking feature for multiple unmeasured confounders. Conclusions Software is now available to implement a QBA for a range of different analyses. However, the diversity of methods, even for the same analysis of interest, presents challenges to their widespread uptake. Provision of detailed QBA guidelines would be highly beneficial.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Quantitative bias analysis in practice: review of software for regression with unmeasured confounding
    Emily Kawabata
    Kate Tilling
    Rolf H. H. Groenwold
    Rachael A. Hughes
    BMC Medical Research Methodology, 23
  • [2] Application of quantitative bias analysis for unmeasured confounding in pharmacoepidemiology
    Brown, Jeremy P.
    Leyrat, Clemence
    Galwey, Nicholas
    Wing, Kevin
    Douglas, Ian J.
    PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, 2020, 29 : 377 - 377
  • [3] Graphical representation of multiple quantitative bias analysis scenarios for unmeasured confounding
    Layton, J. Bradley
    Ziemiecki, Ryan
    Danysh, Heather E.
    Gilsenan, Alicia
    Johannes, Catherine B.
    PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, 2021, 30 : 236 - 236
  • [4] Unmeasured confounding in nonrandomized studies: quantitative bias analysis in health technology assessment
    Leahy, Thomas P.
    Kent, Seamus
    Sammon, Cormac
    Groenwold, Rolf H. H.
    Grieve, Richard
    Ramagopalan, Sreeram
    Gomes, Manuel
    JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH, 2022, 11 (12) : 851 - 859
  • [5] Application of quantitative bias analysis for unmeasured confounding in cost-effectiveness modelling
    Leahy, Thomas P.
    Duffield, Stephen
    Kent, Seamus
    Sammon, Cormac
    Tzelis, Dimitris
    Ray, Joshua
    Groenwold, Rolf H. H.
    Gomes, Manuel
    Ramagopalan, Sreeram
    Grieve, Richard
    JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH, 2022, 11 (12) : 861 - 870
  • [6] The sign of the bias of unmeasured confounding
    VanderWeele, Tyler J.
    BIOMETRICS, 2008, 64 (03) : 702 - 706
  • [7] A quantitative bias analysis to assess the impact of unmeasured confounding on associations between diabetes and periodontitis
    Alshihayb, Talal S.
    Kaye, Elizabeth A.
    Zhao, Yihong
    Leone, Cataldo W.
    Heaton, Brenda
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY, 2021, 48 (01) : 51 - 59
  • [8] A quantitative bias analysis to assess the impact of unmeasured confounding on associations between diabetes and periodontitis
    Raittio, Eero
    Nascimento, Gustavo G.
    Shamsoddin, Erfan
    Ashraf, Javed
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY, 2022, 49 (01) : 84 - 85
  • [9] Hierarchical priors for bias parameters in Bayesian sensitivity analysis for unmeasured confounding
    McCandless, Lawrence C.
    Gustafson, Paul
    Levy, Adrian R.
    Richardson, Sylvia
    STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2012, 31 (04) : 383 - 396
  • [10] Response to Letter to the editor: "A quantitative bias analysis to assess the impact of unmeasured confounding on associations between diabetes and periodontitis"
    Alshihayb, Talal S.
    Heaton, Brenda
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY, 2022, 49 (01) : 86 - 87