Unmeasured confounding in nonrandomized studies: quantitative bias analysis in health technology assessment

被引:13
|
作者
Leahy, Thomas P. [1 ]
Kent, Seamus [2 ]
Sammon, Cormac [1 ]
Groenwold, Rolf H. H. [3 ,4 ]
Grieve, Richard [5 ]
Ramagopalan, Sreeram [6 ]
Gomes, Manuel [7 ]
机构
[1] PHMR Ltd, Westport F28 ET85, Ireland
[2] Natl Inst Hlth & Care Excellence, Manchester M1 4BT, Lancs, England
[3] Leiden Univ, Dept Clin Epidemiol, Med Ctr, Einthovenweg 20, NL-2333 Leiden, Netherlands
[4] Leiden Univ, Dept Biomed Data Sci, Med Ctr, Einthovenweg 20, NL-2333 Leiden, Netherlands
[5] London Sch Hyg & Trop Med, Dept Hlth Serv Res & Policy, London WC1E 7HT, England
[6] F Hoffmann La Roche, Global Access, Grenzacherstr 124, CH-4070 Basel, Switzerland
[7] UCL, Dept Appl Hlth Res, London WC1E 6BT, England
关键词
HTA; nonrandomized; quantitative bias analysis; unmeasured confounding; BAYESIAN SENSITIVITY-ANALYSIS; EXTERNAL ADJUSTMENT; IMPACT; FORMULAS; OUTCOMES; MODEL;
D O I
10.2217/cer-2022-0029
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
Evidence generated from nonrandomized studies (NRS) is increasingly submitted to health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. Unmeasured confounding is a primary concern with this type of evidence, as it may result in biased treatment effect estimates, which has led to much criticism of NRS by HTA agencies. Quantitative bias analyses are a group of methods that have been developed in the epidemiological literature to quantify the impact of unmeasured confounding and adjust effect estimates from NRS. Key considerations for application in HTA proposed in this article reflect the need to balance methodological complexity with ease of application and interpretation, and the need to ensure the methods fit within the existing frameworks used to assess nonrandomized evidence by HTA bodies.
引用
收藏
页码:851 / 859
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] 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
  • [2] A simulation-based bias analysis to assess the impact of unmeasured confounding when designing nonrandomized database studies
    Desai, Rishi J.
    Bradley, Marie C.
    Lee, Hana
    Eworuke, Efe
    Weberpals, Janick
    Wyss, Richard
    Schneeweiss, Sebastian
    Ball, Robert
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2024, 193 (11) : 1600 - 1608
  • [3] Adjusting for unmeasured confounding in nonrandomized longitudinal studies: a methodological review
    Streeter, Adam J.
    Lin, Nan Xuan
    Crathorne, Louise
    Haasova, Marcela
    Hyde, Christopher
    Melzer, David
    Henley, William E.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2017, 87 : 23 - 34
  • [4] Real-world evidence and nonrandomized data in health technology assessment: use existing methods to address unmeasured confounding?
    Sammon, Cormac J.
    Leahy, Thomas P.
    Gsteiger, Sandro
    Ramagopalan, Sreeram
    JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH, 2020, 9 (14) : 969 - 972
  • [5] 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
  • [6] 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
  • [7] Quantitative bias analysis in practice: review of software for regression with unmeasured confounding
    Kawabata, Emily
    Tilling, Kate
    Groenwold, Rolf H. H.
    Hughes, Rachael A.
    BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2023, 23 (01)
  • [8] Quantitative assessment of unobserved confounding is mandatory in nonrandomized intervention studies
    Groenwold, R. H. H.
    Hak, E.
    Hoes, A. W.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2009, 62 (01) : 22 - 28
  • [9] The role of quantitative bias analysis for nonrandomized comparisons in health technology assessment: recommendations from an expert workshop
    Leahy, Thomas P.
    Durand-Zaleski, Isabelle
    Sampietro-Colom, Laura
    Kent, Seamus
    Zoellner, York
    Coyle, Doug
    Casadei, Gianluigi
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN HEALTH CARE, 2023, 39 (01)
  • [10] The Search for Truth Amidst the Bias Addressing Unmeasured Confounding in Observational Studies Addressing Unmeasured Confounding in Observational Studies
    Li, Hu
    Zhang, Xiang
    Faries, Douglas E.
    Stamey, James
    Imbens, Guido W.
    PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, 2017, 26 : 88 - 88