Analyzing partially missing confounder information in comparative effectiveness and safety research of therapeutics
Open Access
- 3 May 2012
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
- Vol. 21 (S2) , 13-20
Abstract
Purpose: Electronic healthcare databases are commonly used in comparative effectiveness and safety research of therapeutics. Many databases now include additional confounder information in a subset of the study population through data linkage or data collection. We described and compared existing methods for analyzing such datasets.Methods: Using data from The Health Improvement Network and the relation between non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs and upper gastrointestinal bleeding as an example, we employed several methods to handle partially missing confounder information.Results: The crude odds ratio (OR) of upper gastrointestinal bleeding was 1.50 (95% confidence interval: 0.98, 2.28) among selective cyclo‐oxygenase‐2 inhibitor initiators (n = 43 569) compared with traditional non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drug initiators (n = 411 616). The OR dropped to 0.81 (0.52, 1.27) upon adjustment for confounders recorded for all patients. When further considering three additional variables missing in 22% of the study population (smoking, alcohol consumption, body mass index), the OR was between 0.80 and 0.83 for the missing‐category approach, the missing‐indicator approach, single imputation by the most common category, multiple imputation by chained equations, and propensity score calibration. The OR was 0.65 (0.39, 1.09) and 0.67 (0.38, 1.16) for the unweighted and the inverse probability weighted complete‐case analysis, respectively.Conclusions: Existing methods for handling partially missing confounder data require different assumptions and may produce different results. The unweighted complete‐case analysis, the missing‐category/indicator approach, and single imputation require often unrealistic assumptions and should be avoided. In this study, differences across methods were not substantial, likely due to relatively low proportion of missingness and weak confounding effect by the three additional variables upon adjustment for other variables. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Keywords
This publication has 44 references indexed in Scilit:
- Confounding adjustment via a semi‐automated high‐dimensional propensity score algorithm: an application to electronic medical recordsPharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 2011
- Unpredictable bias when using the missing indicator method or complete case analysis for missing confounder values: an empirical exampleJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2010
- Linking inpatient clinical registry data to Medicare claims data using indirect identifiersAmerican Heart Journal, 2009
- Clinical Effectiveness of Coronary Stents in Elderly PersonsJACC, 2009
- Performance of Propensity Score Calibration--A Simulation StudyAmerican Journal of Epidemiology, 2007
- Much Ado About NothingThe American Statistician, 2007
- Validation studies of the health improvement network (THIN) database for pharmacoepidemiology researchPharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 2006
- Estimating causal effects from epidemiological dataJournal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2006
- Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear modelsBiometrika, 1986
- The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effectsBiometrika, 1983