Cargando…

Can statistical adjustment guided by causal inference improve the accuracy of effect estimation? A simulation and empirical research based on meta-analyses of case–control studies

BACKGROUND: Statistical adjustment is often considered to control confounding bias in observational studies, especially case–control studies. However, different adjustment strategies may affect the estimation of odds ratios (ORs), and in turn affect the results of their pooled analyses. Our study is...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yan, Ruohua, Liu, Tianyi, Peng, Yaguang, Peng, Xiaoxia
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7731571/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33308213
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-020-01343-3
_version_ 1783621926745276416
author Yan, Ruohua
Liu, Tianyi
Peng, Yaguang
Peng, Xiaoxia
author_facet Yan, Ruohua
Liu, Tianyi
Peng, Yaguang
Peng, Xiaoxia
author_sort Yan, Ruohua
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Statistical adjustment is often considered to control confounding bias in observational studies, especially case–control studies. However, different adjustment strategies may affect the estimation of odds ratios (ORs), and in turn affect the results of their pooled analyses. Our study is aimed to investigate how to deal with the statistical adjustment in case–control studies to improve the validity of meta-analyses. METHODS: Three types of adjustment strategies were evaluated including insufficient adjustment (not all preset confounders were adjusted), full adjustment (all confounders were adjusted under the guidance of causal inference), and improper adjustment (covariates other than confounders were adjusted). We carried out a series of Monte Carlo simulation experiments based on predesigned scenarios, and assessed the accuracy of effect estimations from meta-analyses of case–control studies by combining ORs calculated according to different adjustment strategies. Then we used the data from an empirical review to illustrate the replicability of the simulation results. RESULTS: For all scenarios with different strength of causal relations, combining ORs that were comprehensively adjusted for confounders would get the most precise effect estimation. By contrast, combining ORs that were not sufficiently adjusted for confounders or improperly adjusted for mediators or colliders would easily introduce bias in causal interpretation, especially when the true effect of exposure on outcome was weak or none. The findings of the simulation experiments were further verified by the empirical research. CONCLUSIONS: Statistical adjustment guided by causal inference are recommended for effect estimation. Therefore, when conducting meta-analyses of case–control studies, the causal relationship formulated by exposure, outcome, and covariates should be firstly understood through a directed acyclic graph, and then reasonable original ORs could be extracted and combined by suitable methods.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7731571
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77315712020-12-15 Can statistical adjustment guided by causal inference improve the accuracy of effect estimation? A simulation and empirical research based on meta-analyses of case–control studies Yan, Ruohua Liu, Tianyi Peng, Yaguang Peng, Xiaoxia BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Research Article BACKGROUND: Statistical adjustment is often considered to control confounding bias in observational studies, especially case–control studies. However, different adjustment strategies may affect the estimation of odds ratios (ORs), and in turn affect the results of their pooled analyses. Our study is aimed to investigate how to deal with the statistical adjustment in case–control studies to improve the validity of meta-analyses. METHODS: Three types of adjustment strategies were evaluated including insufficient adjustment (not all preset confounders were adjusted), full adjustment (all confounders were adjusted under the guidance of causal inference), and improper adjustment (covariates other than confounders were adjusted). We carried out a series of Monte Carlo simulation experiments based on predesigned scenarios, and assessed the accuracy of effect estimations from meta-analyses of case–control studies by combining ORs calculated according to different adjustment strategies. Then we used the data from an empirical review to illustrate the replicability of the simulation results. RESULTS: For all scenarios with different strength of causal relations, combining ORs that were comprehensively adjusted for confounders would get the most precise effect estimation. By contrast, combining ORs that were not sufficiently adjusted for confounders or improperly adjusted for mediators or colliders would easily introduce bias in causal interpretation, especially when the true effect of exposure on outcome was weak or none. The findings of the simulation experiments were further verified by the empirical research. CONCLUSIONS: Statistical adjustment guided by causal inference are recommended for effect estimation. Therefore, when conducting meta-analyses of case–control studies, the causal relationship formulated by exposure, outcome, and covariates should be firstly understood through a directed acyclic graph, and then reasonable original ORs could be extracted and combined by suitable methods. BioMed Central 2020-12-11 /pmc/articles/PMC7731571/ /pubmed/33308213 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-020-01343-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Yan, Ruohua
Liu, Tianyi
Peng, Yaguang
Peng, Xiaoxia
Can statistical adjustment guided by causal inference improve the accuracy of effect estimation? A simulation and empirical research based on meta-analyses of case–control studies
title Can statistical adjustment guided by causal inference improve the accuracy of effect estimation? A simulation and empirical research based on meta-analyses of case–control studies
title_full Can statistical adjustment guided by causal inference improve the accuracy of effect estimation? A simulation and empirical research based on meta-analyses of case–control studies
title_fullStr Can statistical adjustment guided by causal inference improve the accuracy of effect estimation? A simulation and empirical research based on meta-analyses of case–control studies
title_full_unstemmed Can statistical adjustment guided by causal inference improve the accuracy of effect estimation? A simulation and empirical research based on meta-analyses of case–control studies
title_short Can statistical adjustment guided by causal inference improve the accuracy of effect estimation? A simulation and empirical research based on meta-analyses of case–control studies
title_sort can statistical adjustment guided by causal inference improve the accuracy of effect estimation? a simulation and empirical research based on meta-analyses of case–control studies
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7731571/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33308213
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-020-01343-3
work_keys_str_mv AT yanruohua canstatisticaladjustmentguidedbycausalinferenceimprovetheaccuracyofeffectestimationasimulationandempiricalresearchbasedonmetaanalysesofcasecontrolstudies
AT liutianyi canstatisticaladjustmentguidedbycausalinferenceimprovetheaccuracyofeffectestimationasimulationandempiricalresearchbasedonmetaanalysesofcasecontrolstudies
AT pengyaguang canstatisticaladjustmentguidedbycausalinferenceimprovetheaccuracyofeffectestimationasimulationandempiricalresearchbasedonmetaanalysesofcasecontrolstudies
AT pengxiaoxia canstatisticaladjustmentguidedbycausalinferenceimprovetheaccuracyofeffectestimationasimulationandempiricalresearchbasedonmetaanalysesofcasecontrolstudies