Assessing causal treatment effect estimation when using large observational datasets

Background Recently, there has been a heightened interest in developing and evaluating different methods for analysing observational data. This has been driven by the increased availability of large data resources such as Electronic Health Record (EHR) data alongside known limitations and changing characteristics of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). A wide range of methods are available for analysing observational data. However, various, sometimes strict, and often unverifiable assumptions must be made in order for the resulting effect estimates to have a causal interpretation. In this paper we will compare some common approaches to estimating treatment effects from observational data in order to highlight the importance of considering, and justifying, the relevant assumptions prior to conducting an observational analysis. Methods A simulation study was conducted based upon a small cohort of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Two-stage least squares instrumental variables, propensity score, and linear regression models were compared under a range of different scenarios including different strengths of instrumental variable and unmeasured confounding. The effects of violating the assumptions of the instrumental variables analysis were also assessed. Sample sizes of up to 200,000 patients were considered. Results Two-stage least squares instrumental variable methods can yield unbiased treatment effect estimates in the presence of unmeasured confounding provided the sample size is sufficiently large. Adjusting for measured covariates in the analysis reduces the variability in the two-stage least squares estimates. In the simulation study, propensity score methods produced very similar results to linear regression for all scenarios. A weak instrument or strong unmeasured confounding led to an increase in uncertainty in the two-stage least squares instrumental variable effect estimates. A violation of the instrumental variable assumptions led to bias in the two-stage least squares effect estimates. Indeed, these were sometimes even more biased than those from a naïve linear regression model. Conclusions Instrumental variable methods can perform better than naïve regression and propensity scores. However, the assumptions need to be carefully considered and justified prior to conducting an analysis or performance may be worse than if the problem of unmeasured confounding had been ignored altogether. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	John, E. R. [verfasserIn] Abrams, K. R. Brightling, C. E. Sheehan, N. A.

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2019

Schlagwörter:	Observational data Causal effect Instrumental variable Propensity scores Unmeasured confounding

Anmerkung:	© The Author(s). 2019

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: BMC medical research methodology - London : BioMed Central, 2001, 19(2019), 1 vom: 14. Nov.
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:19 ; year:2019 ; number:1 ; day:14 ; month:11

Links:	Volltext

DOI / URN:	10.1186/s12874-019-0858-x

Katalog-ID:	SPR027377989

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	SPR027377989
003	DE-627
005	20230520003658.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	201007s2019 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1186/s12874-019-0858-x \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)SPR027377989
035			\|a (SPR)s12874-019-0858-x-e
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
100	1		\|a John, E. R. \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Assessing causal treatment effect estimation when using large observational datasets
264		1	\|c 2019
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
500			\|a © The Author(s). 2019
520			\|a Background Recently, there has been a heightened interest in developing and evaluating different methods for analysing observational data. This has been driven by the increased availability of large data resources such as Electronic Health Record (EHR) data alongside known limitations and changing characteristics of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). A wide range of methods are available for analysing observational data. However, various, sometimes strict, and often unverifiable assumptions must be made in order for the resulting effect estimates to have a causal interpretation. In this paper we will compare some common approaches to estimating treatment effects from observational data in order to highlight the importance of considering, and justifying, the relevant assumptions prior to conducting an observational analysis. Methods A simulation study was conducted based upon a small cohort of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Two-stage least squares instrumental variables, propensity score, and linear regression models were compared under a range of different scenarios including different strengths of instrumental variable and unmeasured confounding. The effects of violating the assumptions of the instrumental variables analysis were also assessed. Sample sizes of up to 200,000 patients were considered. Results Two-stage least squares instrumental variable methods can yield unbiased treatment effect estimates in the presence of unmeasured confounding provided the sample size is sufficiently large. Adjusting for measured covariates in the analysis reduces the variability in the two-stage least squares estimates. In the simulation study, propensity score methods produced very similar results to linear regression for all scenarios. A weak instrument or strong unmeasured confounding led to an increase in uncertainty in the two-stage least squares instrumental variable effect estimates. A violation of the instrumental variable assumptions led to bias in the two-stage least squares effect estimates. Indeed, these were sometimes even more biased than those from a naïve linear regression model. Conclusions Instrumental variable methods can perform better than naïve regression and propensity scores. However, the assumptions need to be carefully considered and justified prior to conducting an analysis or performance may be worse than if the problem of unmeasured confounding had been ignored altogether.
650		4	\|a Observational data \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Causal effect \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Instrumental variable \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Propensity scores \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Unmeasured confounding \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
700	1		\|a Abrams, K. R. \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Brightling, C. E. \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Sheehan, N. A. \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|t BMC medical research methodology \|d London : BioMed Central, 2001 \|g 19(2019), 1 vom: 14. Nov. \|w (DE-627)326643818 \|w (DE-600)2041362-2 \|x 1471-2288 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:19 \|g year:2019 \|g number:1 \|g day:14 \|g month:11
856	4	0	\|u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0858-x \|z kostenfrei \|3 Volltext
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_SPRINGER
912			\|a SSG-OLC-PHA
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_702
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2001
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2006
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2008
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2009
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2010
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2011
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2015
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2020
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2021
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2025
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2031
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2038
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2044
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2048
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2050
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2055
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2056
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2057
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2061
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2113
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2190
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 19 \|j 2019 \|e 1 \|b 14 \|c 11

Indexfelder

author_variant	e r j er erj k r a kr kra c e b ce ceb n a s na nas
matchkey_str	article:14712288:2019----::sesncuatetetfetsiainhnsnlre
hierarchy_sort_str	2019
publishDate	2019
allfields	10.1186/s12874-019-0858-x doi (DE-627)SPR027377989 (SPR)s12874-019-0858-x-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng John, E. R. verfasserin aut Assessing causal treatment effect estimation when using large observational datasets 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2019 Background Recently, there has been a heightened interest in developing and evaluating different methods for analysing observational data. This has been driven by the increased availability of large data resources such as Electronic Health Record (EHR) data alongside known limitations and changing characteristics of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). A wide range of methods are available for analysing observational data. However, various, sometimes strict, and often unverifiable assumptions must be made in order for the resulting effect estimates to have a causal interpretation. In this paper we will compare some common approaches to estimating treatment effects from observational data in order to highlight the importance of considering, and justifying, the relevant assumptions prior to conducting an observational analysis. Methods A simulation study was conducted based upon a small cohort of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Two-stage least squares instrumental variables, propensity score, and linear regression models were compared under a range of different scenarios including different strengths of instrumental variable and unmeasured confounding. The effects of violating the assumptions of the instrumental variables analysis were also assessed. Sample sizes of up to 200,000 patients were considered. Results Two-stage least squares instrumental variable methods can yield unbiased treatment effect estimates in the presence of unmeasured confounding provided the sample size is sufficiently large. Adjusting for measured covariates in the analysis reduces the variability in the two-stage least squares estimates. In the simulation study, propensity score methods produced very similar results to linear regression for all scenarios. A weak instrument or strong unmeasured confounding led to an increase in uncertainty in the two-stage least squares instrumental variable effect estimates. A violation of the instrumental variable assumptions led to bias in the two-stage least squares effect estimates. Indeed, these were sometimes even more biased than those from a naïve linear regression model. Conclusions Instrumental variable methods can perform better than naïve regression and propensity scores. However, the assumptions need to be carefully considered and justified prior to conducting an analysis or performance may be worse than if the problem of unmeasured confounding had been ignored altogether. Observational data (dpeaa)DE-He213 Causal effect (dpeaa)DE-He213 Instrumental variable (dpeaa)DE-He213 Propensity scores (dpeaa)DE-He213 Unmeasured confounding (dpeaa)DE-He213 Abrams, K. R. aut Brightling, C. E. aut Sheehan, N. A. aut Enthalten in BMC medical research methodology London : BioMed Central, 2001 19(2019), 1 vom: 14. Nov. (DE-627)326643818 (DE-600)2041362-2 1471-2288 nnns volume:19 year:2019 number:1 day:14 month:11 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0858-x kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 19 2019 1 14 11
spelling	10.1186/s12874-019-0858-x doi (DE-627)SPR027377989 (SPR)s12874-019-0858-x-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng John, E. R. verfasserin aut Assessing causal treatment effect estimation when using large observational datasets 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2019 Background Recently, there has been a heightened interest in developing and evaluating different methods for analysing observational data. This has been driven by the increased availability of large data resources such as Electronic Health Record (EHR) data alongside known limitations and changing characteristics of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). A wide range of methods are available for analysing observational data. However, various, sometimes strict, and often unverifiable assumptions must be made in order for the resulting effect estimates to have a causal interpretation. In this paper we will compare some common approaches to estimating treatment effects from observational data in order to highlight the importance of considering, and justifying, the relevant assumptions prior to conducting an observational analysis. Methods A simulation study was conducted based upon a small cohort of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Two-stage least squares instrumental variables, propensity score, and linear regression models were compared under a range of different scenarios including different strengths of instrumental variable and unmeasured confounding. The effects of violating the assumptions of the instrumental variables analysis were also assessed. Sample sizes of up to 200,000 patients were considered. Results Two-stage least squares instrumental variable methods can yield unbiased treatment effect estimates in the presence of unmeasured confounding provided the sample size is sufficiently large. Adjusting for measured covariates in the analysis reduces the variability in the two-stage least squares estimates. In the simulation study, propensity score methods produced very similar results to linear regression for all scenarios. A weak instrument or strong unmeasured confounding led to an increase in uncertainty in the two-stage least squares instrumental variable effect estimates. A violation of the instrumental variable assumptions led to bias in the two-stage least squares effect estimates. Indeed, these were sometimes even more biased than those from a naïve linear regression model. Conclusions Instrumental variable methods can perform better than naïve regression and propensity scores. However, the assumptions need to be carefully considered and justified prior to conducting an analysis or performance may be worse than if the problem of unmeasured confounding had been ignored altogether. Observational data (dpeaa)DE-He213 Causal effect (dpeaa)DE-He213 Instrumental variable (dpeaa)DE-He213 Propensity scores (dpeaa)DE-He213 Unmeasured confounding (dpeaa)DE-He213 Abrams, K. R. aut Brightling, C. E. aut Sheehan, N. A. aut Enthalten in BMC medical research methodology London : BioMed Central, 2001 19(2019), 1 vom: 14. Nov. (DE-627)326643818 (DE-600)2041362-2 1471-2288 nnns volume:19 year:2019 number:1 day:14 month:11 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0858-x kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 19 2019 1 14 11
allfields_unstemmed	10.1186/s12874-019-0858-x doi (DE-627)SPR027377989 (SPR)s12874-019-0858-x-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng John, E. R. verfasserin aut Assessing causal treatment effect estimation when using large observational datasets 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2019 Background Recently, there has been a heightened interest in developing and evaluating different methods for analysing observational data. This has been driven by the increased availability of large data resources such as Electronic Health Record (EHR) data alongside known limitations and changing characteristics of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). A wide range of methods are available for analysing observational data. However, various, sometimes strict, and often unverifiable assumptions must be made in order for the resulting effect estimates to have a causal interpretation. In this paper we will compare some common approaches to estimating treatment effects from observational data in order to highlight the importance of considering, and justifying, the relevant assumptions prior to conducting an observational analysis. Methods A simulation study was conducted based upon a small cohort of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Two-stage least squares instrumental variables, propensity score, and linear regression models were compared under a range of different scenarios including different strengths of instrumental variable and unmeasured confounding. The effects of violating the assumptions of the instrumental variables analysis were also assessed. Sample sizes of up to 200,000 patients were considered. Results Two-stage least squares instrumental variable methods can yield unbiased treatment effect estimates in the presence of unmeasured confounding provided the sample size is sufficiently large. Adjusting for measured covariates in the analysis reduces the variability in the two-stage least squares estimates. In the simulation study, propensity score methods produced very similar results to linear regression for all scenarios. A weak instrument or strong unmeasured confounding led to an increase in uncertainty in the two-stage least squares instrumental variable effect estimates. A violation of the instrumental variable assumptions led to bias in the two-stage least squares effect estimates. Indeed, these were sometimes even more biased than those from a naïve linear regression model. Conclusions Instrumental variable methods can perform better than naïve regression and propensity scores. However, the assumptions need to be carefully considered and justified prior to conducting an analysis or performance may be worse than if the problem of unmeasured confounding had been ignored altogether. Observational data (dpeaa)DE-He213 Causal effect (dpeaa)DE-He213 Instrumental variable (dpeaa)DE-He213 Propensity scores (dpeaa)DE-He213 Unmeasured confounding (dpeaa)DE-He213 Abrams, K. R. aut Brightling, C. E. aut Sheehan, N. A. aut Enthalten in BMC medical research methodology London : BioMed Central, 2001 19(2019), 1 vom: 14. Nov. (DE-627)326643818 (DE-600)2041362-2 1471-2288 nnns volume:19 year:2019 number:1 day:14 month:11 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0858-x kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 19 2019 1 14 11
allfieldsGer	10.1186/s12874-019-0858-x doi (DE-627)SPR027377989 (SPR)s12874-019-0858-x-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng John, E. R. verfasserin aut Assessing causal treatment effect estimation when using large observational datasets 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2019 Background Recently, there has been a heightened interest in developing and evaluating different methods for analysing observational data. This has been driven by the increased availability of large data resources such as Electronic Health Record (EHR) data alongside known limitations and changing characteristics of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). A wide range of methods are available for analysing observational data. However, various, sometimes strict, and often unverifiable assumptions must be made in order for the resulting effect estimates to have a causal interpretation. In this paper we will compare some common approaches to estimating treatment effects from observational data in order to highlight the importance of considering, and justifying, the relevant assumptions prior to conducting an observational analysis. Methods A simulation study was conducted based upon a small cohort of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Two-stage least squares instrumental variables, propensity score, and linear regression models were compared under a range of different scenarios including different strengths of instrumental variable and unmeasured confounding. The effects of violating the assumptions of the instrumental variables analysis were also assessed. Sample sizes of up to 200,000 patients were considered. Results Two-stage least squares instrumental variable methods can yield unbiased treatment effect estimates in the presence of unmeasured confounding provided the sample size is sufficiently large. Adjusting for measured covariates in the analysis reduces the variability in the two-stage least squares estimates. In the simulation study, propensity score methods produced very similar results to linear regression for all scenarios. A weak instrument or strong unmeasured confounding led to an increase in uncertainty in the two-stage least squares instrumental variable effect estimates. A violation of the instrumental variable assumptions led to bias in the two-stage least squares effect estimates. Indeed, these were sometimes even more biased than those from a naïve linear regression model. Conclusions Instrumental variable methods can perform better than naïve regression and propensity scores. However, the assumptions need to be carefully considered and justified prior to conducting an analysis or performance may be worse than if the problem of unmeasured confounding had been ignored altogether. Observational data (dpeaa)DE-He213 Causal effect (dpeaa)DE-He213 Instrumental variable (dpeaa)DE-He213 Propensity scores (dpeaa)DE-He213 Unmeasured confounding (dpeaa)DE-He213 Abrams, K. R. aut Brightling, C. E. aut Sheehan, N. A. aut Enthalten in BMC medical research methodology London : BioMed Central, 2001 19(2019), 1 vom: 14. Nov. (DE-627)326643818 (DE-600)2041362-2 1471-2288 nnns volume:19 year:2019 number:1 day:14 month:11 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0858-x kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 19 2019 1 14 11
allfieldsSound	10.1186/s12874-019-0858-x doi (DE-627)SPR027377989 (SPR)s12874-019-0858-x-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng John, E. R. verfasserin aut Assessing causal treatment effect estimation when using large observational datasets 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2019 Background Recently, there has been a heightened interest in developing and evaluating different methods for analysing observational data. This has been driven by the increased availability of large data resources such as Electronic Health Record (EHR) data alongside known limitations and changing characteristics of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). A wide range of methods are available for analysing observational data. However, various, sometimes strict, and often unverifiable assumptions must be made in order for the resulting effect estimates to have a causal interpretation. In this paper we will compare some common approaches to estimating treatment effects from observational data in order to highlight the importance of considering, and justifying, the relevant assumptions prior to conducting an observational analysis. Methods A simulation study was conducted based upon a small cohort of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Two-stage least squares instrumental variables, propensity score, and linear regression models were compared under a range of different scenarios including different strengths of instrumental variable and unmeasured confounding. The effects of violating the assumptions of the instrumental variables analysis were also assessed. Sample sizes of up to 200,000 patients were considered. Results Two-stage least squares instrumental variable methods can yield unbiased treatment effect estimates in the presence of unmeasured confounding provided the sample size is sufficiently large. Adjusting for measured covariates in the analysis reduces the variability in the two-stage least squares estimates. In the simulation study, propensity score methods produced very similar results to linear regression for all scenarios. A weak instrument or strong unmeasured confounding led to an increase in uncertainty in the two-stage least squares instrumental variable effect estimates. A violation of the instrumental variable assumptions led to bias in the two-stage least squares effect estimates. Indeed, these were sometimes even more biased than those from a naïve linear regression model. Conclusions Instrumental variable methods can perform better than naïve regression and propensity scores. However, the assumptions need to be carefully considered and justified prior to conducting an analysis or performance may be worse than if the problem of unmeasured confounding had been ignored altogether. Observational data (dpeaa)DE-He213 Causal effect (dpeaa)DE-He213 Instrumental variable (dpeaa)DE-He213 Propensity scores (dpeaa)DE-He213 Unmeasured confounding (dpeaa)DE-He213 Abrams, K. R. aut Brightling, C. E. aut Sheehan, N. A. aut Enthalten in BMC medical research methodology London : BioMed Central, 2001 19(2019), 1 vom: 14. Nov. (DE-627)326643818 (DE-600)2041362-2 1471-2288 nnns volume:19 year:2019 number:1 day:14 month:11 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0858-x kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 19 2019 1 14 11
language	English
source	Enthalten in BMC medical research methodology 19(2019), 1 vom: 14. Nov. volume:19 year:2019 number:1 day:14 month:11
sourceStr	Enthalten in BMC medical research methodology 19(2019), 1 vom: 14. Nov. volume:19 year:2019 number:1 day:14 month:11
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Observational data Causal effect Instrumental variable Propensity scores Unmeasured confounding
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	BMC medical research methodology
authorswithroles_txt_mv	John, E. R. @@aut@@ Abrams, K. R. @@aut@@ Brightling, C. E. @@aut@@ Sheehan, N. A. @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2019-11-14T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	326643818
id	SPR027377989
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR027377989</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230520003658.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2019 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12874-019-0858-x</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR027377989</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12874-019-0858-x-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">John, E. R.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Assessing causal treatment effect estimation when using large observational datasets</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s). 2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Recently, there has been a heightened interest in developing and evaluating different methods for analysing observational data. This has been driven by the increased availability of large data resources such as Electronic Health Record (EHR) data alongside known limitations and changing characteristics of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). A wide range of methods are available for analysing observational data. However, various, sometimes strict, and often unverifiable assumptions must be made in order for the resulting effect estimates to have a causal interpretation. In this paper we will compare some common approaches to estimating treatment effects from observational data in order to highlight the importance of considering, and justifying, the relevant assumptions prior to conducting an observational analysis. Methods A simulation study was conducted based upon a small cohort of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Two-stage least squares instrumental variables, propensity score, and linear regression models were compared under a range of different scenarios including different strengths of instrumental variable and unmeasured confounding. The effects of violating the assumptions of the instrumental variables analysis were also assessed. Sample sizes of up to 200,000 patients were considered. Results Two-stage least squares instrumental variable methods can yield unbiased treatment effect estimates in the presence of unmeasured confounding provided the sample size is sufficiently large. Adjusting for measured covariates in the analysis reduces the variability in the two-stage least squares estimates. In the simulation study, propensity score methods produced very similar results to linear regression for all scenarios. A weak instrument or strong unmeasured confounding led to an increase in uncertainty in the two-stage least squares instrumental variable effect estimates. A violation of the instrumental variable assumptions led to bias in the two-stage least squares effect estimates. Indeed, these were sometimes even more biased than those from a naïve linear regression model. Conclusions Instrumental variable methods can perform better than naïve regression and propensity scores. However, the assumptions need to be carefully considered and justified prior to conducting an analysis or performance may be worse than if the problem of unmeasured confounding had been ignored altogether.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Observational data</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Causal effect</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Instrumental variable</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Propensity scores</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Unmeasured confounding</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abrams, K. R.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Brightling, C. E.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sheehan, N. A.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC medical research methodology</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2001</subfield><subfield code="g">19(2019), 1 vom: 14. Nov.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)326643818</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2041362-2</subfield><subfield code="x">1471-2288</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:19</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2019</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:14</subfield><subfield code="g">month:11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0858-x</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2031</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2057</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">19</subfield><subfield code="j">2019</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">14</subfield><subfield code="c">11</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	John, E. R.
spellingShingle	John, E. R. misc Observational data misc Causal effect misc Instrumental variable misc Propensity scores misc Unmeasured confounding Assessing causal treatment effect estimation when using large observational datasets
authorStr	John, E. R.
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)326643818
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut
collection	springer
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	1471-2288
topic_title	Assessing causal treatment effect estimation when using large observational datasets Observational data (dpeaa)DE-He213 Causal effect (dpeaa)DE-He213 Instrumental variable (dpeaa)DE-He213 Propensity scores (dpeaa)DE-He213 Unmeasured confounding (dpeaa)DE-He213
topic	misc Observational data misc Causal effect misc Instrumental variable misc Propensity scores misc Unmeasured confounding
topic_unstemmed	misc Observational data misc Causal effect misc Instrumental variable misc Propensity scores misc Unmeasured confounding
topic_browse	misc Observational data misc Causal effect misc Instrumental variable misc Propensity scores misc Unmeasured confounding
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	BMC medical research methodology
hierarchy_parent_id	326643818
hierarchy_top_title	BMC medical research methodology
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)326643818 (DE-600)2041362-2
title	Assessing causal treatment effect estimation when using large observational datasets
ctrlnum	(DE-627)SPR027377989 (SPR)s12874-019-0858-x-e
title_full	Assessing causal treatment effect estimation when using large observational datasets
author_sort	John, E. R.
journal	BMC medical research methodology
journalStr	BMC medical research methodology
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2019
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	John, E. R. Abrams, K. R. Brightling, C. E. Sheehan, N. A.
container_volume	19
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	John, E. R.
doi_str_mv	10.1186/s12874-019-0858-x
title_sort	assessing causal treatment effect estimation when using large observational datasets
title_auth	Assessing causal treatment effect estimation when using large observational datasets
abstract	Background Recently, there has been a heightened interest in developing and evaluating different methods for analysing observational data. This has been driven by the increased availability of large data resources such as Electronic Health Record (EHR) data alongside known limitations and changing characteristics of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). A wide range of methods are available for analysing observational data. However, various, sometimes strict, and often unverifiable assumptions must be made in order for the resulting effect estimates to have a causal interpretation. In this paper we will compare some common approaches to estimating treatment effects from observational data in order to highlight the importance of considering, and justifying, the relevant assumptions prior to conducting an observational analysis. Methods A simulation study was conducted based upon a small cohort of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Two-stage least squares instrumental variables, propensity score, and linear regression models were compared under a range of different scenarios including different strengths of instrumental variable and unmeasured confounding. The effects of violating the assumptions of the instrumental variables analysis were also assessed. Sample sizes of up to 200,000 patients were considered. Results Two-stage least squares instrumental variable methods can yield unbiased treatment effect estimates in the presence of unmeasured confounding provided the sample size is sufficiently large. Adjusting for measured covariates in the analysis reduces the variability in the two-stage least squares estimates. In the simulation study, propensity score methods produced very similar results to linear regression for all scenarios. A weak instrument or strong unmeasured confounding led to an increase in uncertainty in the two-stage least squares instrumental variable effect estimates. A violation of the instrumental variable assumptions led to bias in the two-stage least squares effect estimates. Indeed, these were sometimes even more biased than those from a naïve linear regression model. Conclusions Instrumental variable methods can perform better than naïve regression and propensity scores. However, the assumptions need to be carefully considered and justified prior to conducting an analysis or performance may be worse than if the problem of unmeasured confounding had been ignored altogether. © The Author(s). 2019
abstractGer	Background Recently, there has been a heightened interest in developing and evaluating different methods for analysing observational data. This has been driven by the increased availability of large data resources such as Electronic Health Record (EHR) data alongside known limitations and changing characteristics of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). A wide range of methods are available for analysing observational data. However, various, sometimes strict, and often unverifiable assumptions must be made in order for the resulting effect estimates to have a causal interpretation. In this paper we will compare some common approaches to estimating treatment effects from observational data in order to highlight the importance of considering, and justifying, the relevant assumptions prior to conducting an observational analysis. Methods A simulation study was conducted based upon a small cohort of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Two-stage least squares instrumental variables, propensity score, and linear regression models were compared under a range of different scenarios including different strengths of instrumental variable and unmeasured confounding. The effects of violating the assumptions of the instrumental variables analysis were also assessed. Sample sizes of up to 200,000 patients were considered. Results Two-stage least squares instrumental variable methods can yield unbiased treatment effect estimates in the presence of unmeasured confounding provided the sample size is sufficiently large. Adjusting for measured covariates in the analysis reduces the variability in the two-stage least squares estimates. In the simulation study, propensity score methods produced very similar results to linear regression for all scenarios. A weak instrument or strong unmeasured confounding led to an increase in uncertainty in the two-stage least squares instrumental variable effect estimates. A violation of the instrumental variable assumptions led to bias in the two-stage least squares effect estimates. Indeed, these were sometimes even more biased than those from a naïve linear regression model. Conclusions Instrumental variable methods can perform better than naïve regression and propensity scores. However, the assumptions need to be carefully considered and justified prior to conducting an analysis or performance may be worse than if the problem of unmeasured confounding had been ignored altogether. © The Author(s). 2019
abstract_unstemmed	Background Recently, there has been a heightened interest in developing and evaluating different methods for analysing observational data. This has been driven by the increased availability of large data resources such as Electronic Health Record (EHR) data alongside known limitations and changing characteristics of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). A wide range of methods are available for analysing observational data. However, various, sometimes strict, and often unverifiable assumptions must be made in order for the resulting effect estimates to have a causal interpretation. In this paper we will compare some common approaches to estimating treatment effects from observational data in order to highlight the importance of considering, and justifying, the relevant assumptions prior to conducting an observational analysis. Methods A simulation study was conducted based upon a small cohort of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Two-stage least squares instrumental variables, propensity score, and linear regression models were compared under a range of different scenarios including different strengths of instrumental variable and unmeasured confounding. The effects of violating the assumptions of the instrumental variables analysis were also assessed. Sample sizes of up to 200,000 patients were considered. Results Two-stage least squares instrumental variable methods can yield unbiased treatment effect estimates in the presence of unmeasured confounding provided the sample size is sufficiently large. Adjusting for measured covariates in the analysis reduces the variability in the two-stage least squares estimates. In the simulation study, propensity score methods produced very similar results to linear regression for all scenarios. A weak instrument or strong unmeasured confounding led to an increase in uncertainty in the two-stage least squares instrumental variable effect estimates. A violation of the instrumental variable assumptions led to bias in the two-stage least squares effect estimates. Indeed, these were sometimes even more biased than those from a naïve linear regression model. Conclusions Instrumental variable methods can perform better than naïve regression and propensity scores. However, the assumptions need to be carefully considered and justified prior to conducting an analysis or performance may be worse than if the problem of unmeasured confounding had been ignored altogether. © The Author(s). 2019
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	1
title_short	Assessing causal treatment effect estimation when using large observational datasets
url	https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0858-x
remote_bool	true
author2	Abrams, K. R. Brightling, C. E. Sheehan, N. A.
author2Str	Abrams, K. R. Brightling, C. E. Sheehan, N. A.
ppnlink	326643818
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1186/s12874-019-0858-x
up_date	2024-07-04T01:36:14.295Z
_version_	1803610461891985408
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR027377989</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230520003658.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2019 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12874-019-0858-x</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR027377989</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12874-019-0858-x-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">John, E. R.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Assessing causal treatment effect estimation when using large observational datasets</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s). 2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Recently, there has been a heightened interest in developing and evaluating different methods for analysing observational data. This has been driven by the increased availability of large data resources such as Electronic Health Record (EHR) data alongside known limitations and changing characteristics of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). A wide range of methods are available for analysing observational data. However, various, sometimes strict, and often unverifiable assumptions must be made in order for the resulting effect estimates to have a causal interpretation. In this paper we will compare some common approaches to estimating treatment effects from observational data in order to highlight the importance of considering, and justifying, the relevant assumptions prior to conducting an observational analysis. Methods A simulation study was conducted based upon a small cohort of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Two-stage least squares instrumental variables, propensity score, and linear regression models were compared under a range of different scenarios including different strengths of instrumental variable and unmeasured confounding. The effects of violating the assumptions of the instrumental variables analysis were also assessed. Sample sizes of up to 200,000 patients were considered. Results Two-stage least squares instrumental variable methods can yield unbiased treatment effect estimates in the presence of unmeasured confounding provided the sample size is sufficiently large. Adjusting for measured covariates in the analysis reduces the variability in the two-stage least squares estimates. In the simulation study, propensity score methods produced very similar results to linear regression for all scenarios. A weak instrument or strong unmeasured confounding led to an increase in uncertainty in the two-stage least squares instrumental variable effect estimates. A violation of the instrumental variable assumptions led to bias in the two-stage least squares effect estimates. Indeed, these were sometimes even more biased than those from a naïve linear regression model. Conclusions Instrumental variable methods can perform better than naïve regression and propensity scores. However, the assumptions need to be carefully considered and justified prior to conducting an analysis or performance may be worse than if the problem of unmeasured confounding had been ignored altogether.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Observational data</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Causal effect</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Instrumental variable</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Propensity scores</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Unmeasured confounding</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abrams, K. R.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Brightling, C. E.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sheehan, N. A.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC medical research methodology</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2001</subfield><subfield code="g">19(2019), 1 vom: 14. Nov.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)326643818</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2041362-2</subfield><subfield code="x">1471-2288</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:19</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2019</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:14</subfield><subfield code="g">month:11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0858-x</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2031</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2057</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">19</subfield><subfield code="j">2019</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">14</subfield><subfield code="c">11</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.398258

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Assessing causal treatment effect estimation when using large observational datasets

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?