Transparency of high-dimensional propensity score analyses: Guidance for diagnostics and reporting

被引:11
|
作者
Tazare, John [1 ]
Wyss, Richard [2 ,3 ]
Franklin, Jessica M. [2 ,3 ]
Smeeth, Liam [1 ,4 ]
Evans, Stephen J. W. [1 ]
Wang, Shirley, V [2 ,3 ]
Schneeweiss, Sebastian [2 ,3 ]
Douglas, Ian J. [1 ,4 ]
Gagne, Joshua J. [2 ,3 ]
Williamson, Elizabeth J. [1 ,4 ]
机构
[1] London Sch Hyg & Trop Med, Fac Epidemiol & Populat Hlth, Keppel St, London WC1E 7HT, England
[2] Brigham & Womens Hosp, Div Pharmacoepidemiol & Pharmacoecon, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[3] Harvard Med Sch, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[4] Hlth Data Res HDR UK, London, England
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
confounder adjustment; database research; diagnostics; high dimensional propensity score; reporting; COVARIATE SELECTION; CONFOUNDING CONTROL; VARIABLE SELECTION; CLOPIDOGREL; ADJUSTMENT; BIAS;
D O I
10.1002/pds.5412
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Purpose The high-dimensional propensity score (HDPS) is a semi-automated procedure for confounder identification, prioritisation and adjustment in large healthcare databases that requires investigators to specify data dimensions, prioritisation strategy and tuning parameters. In practice, reporting of these decisions is inconsistent and this can undermine the transparency, and reproducibility of results obtained. We illustrate reporting tools, graphical displays and sensitivity analyses to increase transparency and facilitate evaluation of the robustness of analyses involving HDPS. Methods Using a study from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink that implemented HDPS we demonstrate the application of the proposed recommendations. Results We identify seven considerations surrounding the implementation of HDPS, such as the identification of data dimensions, method for code prioritisation and number of variables selected. Graphical diagnostic tools include assessing the balance of key confounders before and after adjusting for empirically selected HDPS covariates and the identification of potentially influential covariates. Sensitivity analyses include varying the number of covariates selected and assessing the impact of covariates behaving empirically as instrumental variables. In our example, results were robust to both the number of covariates selected and the inclusion of potentially influential covariates. Furthermore, our HDPS models achieved good balance in key confounders. Conclusions The data-adaptive approach of HDPS and the resulting benefits have led to its popularity as a method for confounder adjustment in pharmacoepidemiological studies. Reporting of HDPS analyses in practice may be improved by the considerations and tools proposed here to increase the transparency and reproducibility of study results.
引用
收藏
页码:411 / 423
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Robust estimation of causal effects via a high-dimensional covariate balancing propensity score
    Ning, Yang
    Sida, Peng
    Imai, Kosuke
    BIOMETRIKA, 2020, 107 (03) : 533 - 554
  • [32] High-Dimensional Propensity Score Implementation Utilising Electronic Health Records in Hong Kong
    Cheung, Edmund C. L.
    Fan, Min
    Chui, Celine S. L.
    Wong, Angel
    Tazare, John R.
    PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, 2024, 33 : 610 - 610
  • [33] Using Super Learner Prediction Modeling to Improve High-dimensional Propensity Score Estimation
    Wyss, Richard
    Schneeweiss, Sebastian
    van der Laan, Mark
    Lendle, Samuel D.
    Ju, Cheng
    Franklin, Jessica M.
    EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2018, 29 (01) : 96 - 106
  • [34] Observed Performance of the High-Dimensional Propensity Score (hd-PS) Algorithm in Small Samples
    Rassen, Jeremy A.
    Brookhart, M. Alan
    Schneeweiss, Sebastian
    PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, 2009, 18 : S15 - S15
  • [35] Comparison of methods for incorporating test result information within the high-dimensional propensity score framework
    Tazare, John
    Brown, Jeremy P.
    Smeeth, Liam
    Evans, Stephen J. W.
    Williamson, Elizabeth
    Douglas, Ian J.
    PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, 2020, 29 : 386 - 387
  • [36] High-dimensional propensity score algorithm in comparative effectiveness research with time-varying interventions
    Neugebauer, Romain
    Schmittdiel, Julie A.
    Zhu, Zheng
    Rassen, Jeremy A.
    Seeger, John D.
    Schneeweiss, Sebastian
    STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2015, 34 (05) : 753 - 781
  • [37] Can We Train Machine Learning Methods to Outperform the High-dimensional Propensity Score Algorithm?
    Karim, Mohammad Ehsanul
    Pang, Menglan
    Platt, Robert W.
    EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2018, 29 (02) : 191 - 198
  • [38] Poor Performance of High-Dimensional Propensity Score Matching in Primary Care Medical Records Data
    Voorham, Jaco
    Denig, Petra
    PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, 2013, 22 : 178 - 179
  • [39] DEBIASED INVERSE PROPENSITY SCORE WEIGHTING FOR ESTIMATION OF AVERAGE TREATMENT EFFECTS WITH HIGH-DIMENSIONAL CONFOUNDERS
    Wang, Yuhao
    Shah, Rajen d.
    ANNALS OF STATISTICS, 2024, 52 (05): : 1978 - 2003
  • [40] Implementing high-dimensional propensity score principles to improve confounder adjustment inUKelectronic health records
    Tazare, John
    Smeeth, Liam
    Evans, Stephen J. W.
    Williamson, Elizabeth
    Douglas, Ian J.
    PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, 2020, 29 (11) : 1373 - 1381