When do confounding by indication and inadequate risk adjustment bias critical care studies? A simulation study
Open Access
- 30 April 2015
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in Critical Care
- Vol. 19 (1), 1-9
- https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-015-0923-8
Abstract
In critical care observational studies, when clinicians administer different treatments to sicker patients, any treatment comparisons will be confounded by differences in severity of illness between patients. We sought to investigate the extent that observational studies assessing treatments are at risk of incorrectly concluding such treatments are ineffective or even harmful due to inadequate risk adjustment. We performed Monte Carlo simulations of observational studies evaluating the effect of a hypothetical treatment on mortality in critically ill patients. We set the treatment to have either no association with mortality or to have a truly beneficial effect, but more often administered to sicker patients. We varied the strength of the treatment’s true effect, strength of confounding, study size, patient population, and accuracy of the severity of illness risk-adjustment (area under the receiver operator characteristics curve, AUROC). We measured rates in which studies made inaccurate conclusions about the treatment’s true effect due to confounding, and the measured odds ratios for mortality for such false associations. Simulated observational studies employing adequate risk-adjustment were generally able to measure a treatment’s true effect. As risk-adjustment worsened, rates of studies incorrectly concluding the treatment provided no benefit or harm increased, especially when sample size was large (n = 10,000). Even in scenarios of only low confounding, studies using the lower accuracy risk-adjustors (AUROC < 0.66) falsely concluded that a beneficial treatment was harmful. Measured odds ratios for mortality of 1.4 or higher were possible when the treatment’s true beneficial effect was an odds ratio for mortality of 0.6 or 0.8. Large observational studies confounded by severity of illness have a high likelihood of obtaining incorrect results even after employing conventionally “acceptable” levels of risk-adjustment, with large effect sizes that may be construed as true associations. Reporting the AUROC of the risk-adjustment used in the analysis may facilitate an evaluation of a study’s risk for confounding.Keywords
This publication has 32 references indexed in Scilit:
- Multiparameter Intelligent Monitoring in Intensive Care II: A public-access intensive care unit database*Critical Care Medicine, 2011
- We should abandon randomized controlled trials in the intensive care unitCritical Care Medicine, 2010
- A comparison between the APACHE II and Charlson Index Score for predicting hospital mortality in critically ill patientsBMC Health Services Research, 2009
- Predictors of hospital mortality in a population-based cohort of patients with acute lung injury*Critical Care Medicine, 2008
- Multicenter, randomized, controlled trials evaluating mortality in intensive care: Doomed to fail?Critical Care Medicine, 2008
- Veterans Affairs intensive care unit risk adjustment model: Validation, updating, recalibration*Critical Care Medicine, 2008
- The design of simulation studies in medical statisticsStatistics in Medicine, 2006
- External validity of randomised controlled trials: “To whom do the results of this trial apply?”The Lancet, 2005
- Predictive ability of Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scoring applied to human immunodeficiency virus-positive patientsCritical Care Medicine, 1995
- INVALIDATION OF THE APACHE II SCORING SYSTEM FOR PATIENTS WITH ACUTE TRAUMAThe Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, 1992