Analytical Methods for a Learning Health System: 3. Analysis of Observational Studies
Open Access
- 16 May 2017
- journal article
- Published by Ubiquity Press, Ltd. in eGEMs (Generating Evidence & Methods to improve patient outcomes)
- Vol. 5 (1), 30
- https://doi.org/10.5334/egems.252
Abstract
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.Keywords
This publication has 13 references indexed in Scilit:
- Intussusception Risk after Rotavirus Vaccination in U.S. InfantsThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2014
- Estimating Causal Effects in Observational Studies Using Electronic Health Data: Challenges and (some) SolutionseGEMs (Generating Evidence & Methods to improve patient outcomes), 2013
- Matching Methods for Causal Inference: A Review and a Look ForwardStatistical Science, 2010
- Improving propensity score weighting using machine learningStatistics in Medicine, 2009
- High-dimensional Propensity Score Adjustment in Studies of Treatment Effects Using Health Care Claims DataEpidemiology, 2009
- Instrumental variables II: instrumental variable application—in 25 variations, the physician prescribing preference generally was strong and reduced covariate imbalanceJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2009
- Observational Studies Analyzed Like Randomized ExperimentsEpidemiology, 2008
- Induction and Maintenance Infliximab Therapy for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Crohn’s Disease in ChildrenGastroenterology, 2007
- The design versus the analysis of observational studies for causal effects: parallels with the design of randomized trialsStatistics in Medicine, 2006
- Rational Prescribing in Primary Care (RaPP): A Cluster Randomized Trial of a Tailored InterventionPLoS Medicine, 2006