Cargando…

Confounding in longitudinal studies in addiction treatment research

Background: The effectiveness of treatment for people with substance use disorders is usually examined using longitudinal cohorts. In these studies, treatment is often considered as a time-varying exposure. The aim of this commentary is to examine confounding in this context, when the confounding va...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pierce, Matthias, Dunn, Graham, Millar, Tim
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Taylor & Francis 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5360166/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28392755
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16066359.2016.1247812
_version_ 1782516544364871680
author Pierce, Matthias
Dunn, Graham
Millar, Tim
author_facet Pierce, Matthias
Dunn, Graham
Millar, Tim
author_sort Pierce, Matthias
collection PubMed
description Background: The effectiveness of treatment for people with substance use disorders is usually examined using longitudinal cohorts. In these studies, treatment is often considered as a time-varying exposure. The aim of this commentary is to examine confounding in this context, when the confounding variable is time-invariant and when it is time-varying. Method: Types of confounding are described with examples and illustrated using path diagrams. Simulations are used to demonstrate the direction of confounding bias and the extent that it is accounted for using standard regression adjustment techniques. Results: When the confounding variable is time invariant or time varying and not influenced by prior treatment, then standard adjustment techniques are adequate to control for confounding bias, provided that in the latter scenario the time-varying form of the variable is used. When the confounder is time varying and affected by prior treatment status (i.e. it is a mediator of treatment), then standard methods of adjustment result in inconsistency. Conclusions: In longitudinal cohorts where treatment exposure is time varying, confounding is an issue which should be considered, even if treatment exposure is initially randomized. In these studies, standard methods of adjustment may result be inadequate, even when all confounders have been identified. This occurs when the confounder is also a mediator of treatment. This is a likely scenario in many studies in addiction.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5360166
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Taylor & Francis
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53601662017-04-05 Confounding in longitudinal studies in addiction treatment research Pierce, Matthias Dunn, Graham Millar, Tim Addict Res Theory Think Piece Background: The effectiveness of treatment for people with substance use disorders is usually examined using longitudinal cohorts. In these studies, treatment is often considered as a time-varying exposure. The aim of this commentary is to examine confounding in this context, when the confounding variable is time-invariant and when it is time-varying. Method: Types of confounding are described with examples and illustrated using path diagrams. Simulations are used to demonstrate the direction of confounding bias and the extent that it is accounted for using standard regression adjustment techniques. Results: When the confounding variable is time invariant or time varying and not influenced by prior treatment, then standard adjustment techniques are adequate to control for confounding bias, provided that in the latter scenario the time-varying form of the variable is used. When the confounder is time varying and affected by prior treatment status (i.e. it is a mediator of treatment), then standard methods of adjustment result in inconsistency. Conclusions: In longitudinal cohorts where treatment exposure is time varying, confounding is an issue which should be considered, even if treatment exposure is initially randomized. In these studies, standard methods of adjustment may result be inadequate, even when all confounders have been identified. This occurs when the confounder is also a mediator of treatment. This is a likely scenario in many studies in addiction. Taylor & Francis 2017-05-04 2016-12-22 /pmc/articles/PMC5360166/ /pubmed/28392755 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16066359.2016.1247812 Text en © 2016 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
spellingShingle Think Piece
Pierce, Matthias
Dunn, Graham
Millar, Tim
Confounding in longitudinal studies in addiction treatment research
title Confounding in longitudinal studies in addiction treatment research
title_full Confounding in longitudinal studies in addiction treatment research
title_fullStr Confounding in longitudinal studies in addiction treatment research
title_full_unstemmed Confounding in longitudinal studies in addiction treatment research
title_short Confounding in longitudinal studies in addiction treatment research
title_sort confounding in longitudinal studies in addiction treatment research
topic Think Piece
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5360166/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28392755
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16066359.2016.1247812
work_keys_str_mv AT piercematthias confoundinginlongitudinalstudiesinaddictiontreatmentresearch
AT dunngraham confoundinginlongitudinalstudiesinaddictiontreatmentresearch
AT millartim confoundinginlongitudinalstudiesinaddictiontreatmentresearch