Cargando…

How unmeasured confounding in a competing risks setting can affect treatment effect estimates in observational studies

BACKGROUND: Analysis of competing risks is commonly achieved through a cause specific or a subdistribution framework using Cox or Fine & Gray models, respectively. The estimation of treatment effects in observational data is prone to unmeasured confounding which causes bias. There has been limit...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Barrowman, Michael Andrew, Peek, Niels, Lambie, Mark, Martin, Glen Philip, Sperrin, Matthew
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6668192/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31366331
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0808-7
_version_ 1783440178165055488
author Barrowman, Michael Andrew
Peek, Niels
Lambie, Mark
Martin, Glen Philip
Sperrin, Matthew
author_facet Barrowman, Michael Andrew
Peek, Niels
Lambie, Mark
Martin, Glen Philip
Sperrin, Matthew
author_sort Barrowman, Michael Andrew
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Analysis of competing risks is commonly achieved through a cause specific or a subdistribution framework using Cox or Fine & Gray models, respectively. The estimation of treatment effects in observational data is prone to unmeasured confounding which causes bias. There has been limited research into such biases in a competing risks framework. METHODS: We designed simulations to examine bias in the estimated treatment effect under Cox and Fine & Gray models with unmeasured confounding present. We varied the strength of the unmeasured confounding (i.e. the unmeasured variable’s effect on the probability of treatment and both outcome events) in different scenarios. RESULTS: In both the Cox and Fine & Gray models, correlation between the unmeasured confounder and the probability of treatment created biases in the same direction (upward/downward) as the effect of the unmeasured confounder on the event-of-interest. The association between correlation and bias is reversed if the unmeasured confounder affects the competing event. These effects are reversed for the bias on the treatment effect of the competing event and are amplified when there are uneven treatment arms. CONCLUSION: The effect of unmeasured confounding on an event-of-interest or a competing event should not be overlooked in observational studies as strong correlations can lead to bias in treatment effect estimates and therefore cause inaccurate results to lead to false conclusions. This is true for cause specific perspective, but moreso for a subdistribution perspective. This can have ramifications if real-world treatment decisions rely on conclusions from these biased results. Graphical visualisation to aid in understanding the systems involved and potential confounders/events leading to sensitivity analyses that assumes unmeasured confounders exists should be performed to assess the robustness of results. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-019-0808-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6668192
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66681922019-08-06 How unmeasured confounding in a competing risks setting can affect treatment effect estimates in observational studies Barrowman, Michael Andrew Peek, Niels Lambie, Mark Martin, Glen Philip Sperrin, Matthew BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: Analysis of competing risks is commonly achieved through a cause specific or a subdistribution framework using Cox or Fine & Gray models, respectively. The estimation of treatment effects in observational data is prone to unmeasured confounding which causes bias. There has been limited research into such biases in a competing risks framework. METHODS: We designed simulations to examine bias in the estimated treatment effect under Cox and Fine & Gray models with unmeasured confounding present. We varied the strength of the unmeasured confounding (i.e. the unmeasured variable’s effect on the probability of treatment and both outcome events) in different scenarios. RESULTS: In both the Cox and Fine & Gray models, correlation between the unmeasured confounder and the probability of treatment created biases in the same direction (upward/downward) as the effect of the unmeasured confounder on the event-of-interest. The association between correlation and bias is reversed if the unmeasured confounder affects the competing event. These effects are reversed for the bias on the treatment effect of the competing event and are amplified when there are uneven treatment arms. CONCLUSION: The effect of unmeasured confounding on an event-of-interest or a competing event should not be overlooked in observational studies as strong correlations can lead to bias in treatment effect estimates and therefore cause inaccurate results to lead to false conclusions. This is true for cause specific perspective, but moreso for a subdistribution perspective. This can have ramifications if real-world treatment decisions rely on conclusions from these biased results. Graphical visualisation to aid in understanding the systems involved and potential confounders/events leading to sensitivity analyses that assumes unmeasured confounders exists should be performed to assess the robustness of results. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-019-0808-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-07-31 /pmc/articles/PMC6668192/ /pubmed/31366331 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0808-7 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Barrowman, Michael Andrew
Peek, Niels
Lambie, Mark
Martin, Glen Philip
Sperrin, Matthew
How unmeasured confounding in a competing risks setting can affect treatment effect estimates in observational studies
title How unmeasured confounding in a competing risks setting can affect treatment effect estimates in observational studies
title_full How unmeasured confounding in a competing risks setting can affect treatment effect estimates in observational studies
title_fullStr How unmeasured confounding in a competing risks setting can affect treatment effect estimates in observational studies
title_full_unstemmed How unmeasured confounding in a competing risks setting can affect treatment effect estimates in observational studies
title_short How unmeasured confounding in a competing risks setting can affect treatment effect estimates in observational studies
title_sort how unmeasured confounding in a competing risks setting can affect treatment effect estimates in observational studies
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6668192/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31366331
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0808-7
work_keys_str_mv AT barrowmanmichaelandrew howunmeasuredconfoundinginacompetingriskssettingcanaffecttreatmenteffectestimatesinobservationalstudies
AT peekniels howunmeasuredconfoundinginacompetingriskssettingcanaffecttreatmenteffectestimatesinobservationalstudies
AT lambiemark howunmeasuredconfoundinginacompetingriskssettingcanaffecttreatmenteffectestimatesinobservationalstudies
AT martinglenphilip howunmeasuredconfoundinginacompetingriskssettingcanaffecttreatmenteffectestimatesinobservationalstudies
AT sperrinmatthew howunmeasuredconfoundinginacompetingriskssettingcanaffecttreatmenteffectestimatesinobservationalstudies