Estimation of treatment effects in observational stroke care data: comparison of statistical approaches
dc.contributor.author | Amini, Marzyeh | |
dc.contributor.author | van Leeuwen, Nikki | |
dc.contributor.author | Eijkenaar, Frank | |
dc.contributor.author | van de Graaf, Rob | |
dc.contributor.author | Samuels, Noor | |
dc.contributor.author | van Oostenbrugge, Robert | |
dc.contributor.author | van den Wijngaard, Ido R. | |
dc.contributor.author | van Doormaal, Pieter J. | |
dc.contributor.author | Roos, Yvo B. W. E. M. | |
dc.contributor.author | Majoie, Charles | |
dc.contributor.author | Roozenbeek, Bob | |
dc.contributor.author | Dippel, Diederik | |
dc.contributor.author | Burke, James | |
dc.contributor.author | Lingsma, Hester F. | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2022-08-10T18:12:56Z | |
dc.date.available | 2022-08-10T18:12:56Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2022-04-10 | |
dc.identifier.citation | BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2022 Apr 10;22(1):103 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01590-0 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/173586 | en |
dc.description.abstract | Abstract Introduction Various statistical approaches can be used to deal with unmeasured confounding when estimating treatment effects in observational studies, each with its own pros and cons. This study aimed to compare treatment effects as estimated by different statistical approaches for two interventions in observational stroke care data. Patients and methods We used prospectively collected data from the MR CLEAN registry including all patients (n = 3279) with ischemic stroke who underwent endovascular treatment (EVT) from 2014 to 2017 in 17 Dutch hospitals. Treatment effects of two interventions – i.e., receiving an intravenous thrombolytic (IVT) and undergoing general anesthesia (GA) before EVT – on good functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale ≤2) were estimated. We used three statistical regression-based approaches that vary in assumptions regarding the source of unmeasured confounding: individual-level (two subtypes), ecological, and instrumental variable analyses. In the latter, the preference for using the interventions in each hospital was used as an instrument. Results Use of IVT (range 66–87%) and GA (range 0–93%) varied substantially between hospitals. For IVT, the individual-level (OR ~ 1.33) resulted in significant positive effect estimates whereas in instrumental variable analysis no significant treatment effect was found (OR 1.11; 95% CI 0.58–1.56). The ecological analysis indicated no statistically significant different likelihood (β = − 0.002%; P = 0.99) of good functional outcome at hospitals using IVT 1% more frequently. For GA, we found non-significant opposite directions of points estimates the treatment effect in the individual-level (ORs ~ 0.60) versus the instrumental variable approach (OR = 1.04). The ecological analysis also resulted in a non-significant negative association (0.03% lower probability). Discussion and conclusion Both magnitude and direction of the estimated treatment effects for both interventions depend strongly on the statistical approach and thus on the source of (unmeasured) confounding. These issues should be understood concerning the specific characteristics of data, before applying an approach and interpreting the results. Instrumental variable analysis might be considered when unobserved confounding and practice variation is expected in observational multicenter studies. | |
dc.title | Estimation of treatment effects in observational stroke care data: comparison of statistical approaches | |
dc.type | Journal Article | |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/173586/1/12874_2022_Article_1590.pdf | |
dc.identifier.doi | https://dx.doi.org/10.7302/5317 | |
dc.language.rfc3066 | en | |
dc.rights.holder | The Author(s) | |
dc.date.updated | 2022-08-10T18:12:55Z | |
dc.owningcollname | Interdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed |
Files in this item
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.