Cargando…

Analytical Methods for a Learning Health System: 3. Analysis of Observational Studies

The third paper in a series on how learning health systems can use routinely collected electronic health data (EHD) to advance knowledge and support continuous learning, this review describes how analytical methods for individual-level electronic health data EHD, including regression approaches, int...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Stoto, Michael, Oakes, Michael, Stuart, Elizabeth, Brown, Randall, Zurovac, Jelena, Priest, Elisa L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Ubiquity Press 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5982993/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29881746
http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/egems.252
_version_ 1783328353528315904
author Stoto, Michael
Oakes, Michael
Stuart, Elizabeth
Brown, Randall
Zurovac, Jelena
Priest, Elisa L.
author_facet Stoto, Michael
Oakes, Michael
Stuart, Elizabeth
Brown, Randall
Zurovac, Jelena
Priest, Elisa L.
author_sort Stoto, Michael
collection PubMed
description The third paper in a series on how learning health systems can use routinely collected electronic health data (EHD) to advance knowledge and support continuous learning, this review describes how analytical methods for individual-level electronic health data EHD, including regression approaches, interrupted time series (ITS) analyses, instrumental variables, and propensity score methods, can also be used to address the question of whether the intervention “works.” The two major potential sources of bias in non-experimental studies of health care interventions are that the treatment groups compared do not have the same probability of treatment or exposure and the potential for confounding by unmeasured covariates. Although very different, the approaches presented in this chapter are all based on assumptions about data, causal relationships, and biases. For instance, regression approaches assume that the relationship between the treatment, outcome, and other variables is properly specified, all of the variables are available for analysis (i.e., no unobserved confounders) and measured without error, and that the error term is independent and identically distributed. The instrumental variables approach requires identifying an instrument that is related to the assignment of treatment but otherwise has no direct on the outcome. Propensity score methods approaches, on the other hand, assume that there are no unobserved confounders. The epidemiological designs discussed also make assumptions, for instance that individuals can serve as their own control. To properly address these assumptions, analysts should conduct sensitivity analyses within the assumptions of each method to assess the potential impact of what cannot be observed. Researchers also should analyze the same data with different analytical approaches that make alternative assumptions, and to apply the same methods to different data sets. Finally, different analytical methods, each subject to different biases, should be used in combination and together with different designs, to limit the potential for bias in the final results.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5982993
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Ubiquity Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59829932018-06-07 Analytical Methods for a Learning Health System: 3. Analysis of Observational Studies Stoto, Michael Oakes, Michael Stuart, Elizabeth Brown, Randall Zurovac, Jelena Priest, Elisa L. EGEMS (Wash DC) Research The third paper in a series on how learning health systems can use routinely collected electronic health data (EHD) to advance knowledge and support continuous learning, this review describes how analytical methods for individual-level electronic health data EHD, including regression approaches, interrupted time series (ITS) analyses, instrumental variables, and propensity score methods, can also be used to address the question of whether the intervention “works.” The two major potential sources of bias in non-experimental studies of health care interventions are that the treatment groups compared do not have the same probability of treatment or exposure and the potential for confounding by unmeasured covariates. Although very different, the approaches presented in this chapter are all based on assumptions about data, causal relationships, and biases. For instance, regression approaches assume that the relationship between the treatment, outcome, and other variables is properly specified, all of the variables are available for analysis (i.e., no unobserved confounders) and measured without error, and that the error term is independent and identically distributed. The instrumental variables approach requires identifying an instrument that is related to the assignment of treatment but otherwise has no direct on the outcome. Propensity score methods approaches, on the other hand, assume that there are no unobserved confounders. The epidemiological designs discussed also make assumptions, for instance that individuals can serve as their own control. To properly address these assumptions, analysts should conduct sensitivity analyses within the assumptions of each method to assess the potential impact of what cannot be observed. Researchers also should analyze the same data with different analytical approaches that make alternative assumptions, and to apply the same methods to different data sets. Finally, different analytical methods, each subject to different biases, should be used in combination and together with different designs, to limit the potential for bias in the final results. Ubiquity Press 2017-12-07 /pmc/articles/PMC5982993/ /pubmed/29881746 http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/egems.252 Text en Copyright: © 2018 The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0), which permits unrestricted use and distribution, for non-commercial purposes, as long as the original material has not been modified, and provided the original author and source are credited. See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/.
spellingShingle Research
Stoto, Michael
Oakes, Michael
Stuart, Elizabeth
Brown, Randall
Zurovac, Jelena
Priest, Elisa L.
Analytical Methods for a Learning Health System: 3. Analysis of Observational Studies
title Analytical Methods for a Learning Health System: 3. Analysis of Observational Studies
title_full Analytical Methods for a Learning Health System: 3. Analysis of Observational Studies
title_fullStr Analytical Methods for a Learning Health System: 3. Analysis of Observational Studies
title_full_unstemmed Analytical Methods for a Learning Health System: 3. Analysis of Observational Studies
title_short Analytical Methods for a Learning Health System: 3. Analysis of Observational Studies
title_sort analytical methods for a learning health system: 3. analysis of observational studies
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5982993/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29881746
http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/egems.252
work_keys_str_mv AT stotomichael analyticalmethodsforalearninghealthsystem3analysisofobservationalstudies
AT oakesmichael analyticalmethodsforalearninghealthsystem3analysisofobservationalstudies
AT stuartelizabeth analyticalmethodsforalearninghealthsystem3analysisofobservationalstudies
AT brownrandall analyticalmethodsforalearninghealthsystem3analysisofobservationalstudies
AT zurovacjelena analyticalmethodsforalearninghealthsystem3analysisofobservationalstudies
AT priestelisal analyticalmethodsforalearninghealthsystem3analysisofobservationalstudies