UNIGE document Scientific Article
previous document  unige:108131  next document
add to browser collection

Adjusted Analyses in Studies Addressing Therapy and Harm: Users' Guides to the Medical Literature

Shah, Nilay D
O'Donnell, Martin
Guyatt, Gordon H
Published in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association). 2017, vol. 317, no. 7, p. 748-759
Abstract Observational studies almost always have bias because prognostic factors are unequally distributed between patients exposed or not exposed to an intervention. The standard approach to dealing with this problem is adjusted or stratified analysis. Its principle is to use measurement of risk factors to create prognostically homogeneous groups and to combine effect estimates across groups.The purpose of this Users' Guide is to introduce readers to fundamental concepts underlying adjustment as a way of dealing with prognostic imbalance and to the basic principles and relative trustworthiness of various adjustment strategies.One alternative to the standard approach is propensity analysis, in which groups are matched according to the likelihood of membership in exposed or unexposed groups. Propensity methods can deal with multiple prognostic factors, even if there are relatively few patients having outcome events. However, propensity methods do not address other limitations of traditional adjustment: investigators may not have measured all relevant prognostic factors (or not accurately), and unknown factors may bias the results.A second approach, instrumental variable analysis, relies on identifying a variable associated with the likelihood of receiving the intervention but not associated with any prognostic factor or with the outcome (other than through the intervention); this could mimic randomization. However, as with assumptions of other adjustment approaches, it is never certain if an instrumental variable analysis eliminates bias.Although all these approaches can reduce the risk of bias in observational studies, none replace the balance of both known and unknown prognostic factors offered by randomization.
Keywords Age FactorsAnalysis of VarianceBiasCardiac Catheterization/adverse effectsCohort StudiesHumansMyocardial Infarction/therapyObservational Studies as Topic/statistics & numerical dataPrognosisPropensity ScoreRandom AllocationRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic/statistics & numerical dataRegression AnalysisRisk Adjustment/methods/statistics & numerical dataRisk Assessment/methodsRisk FactorsSelection Bias
PMID: 28241362
Full text
Article (Published version) (551 Kb) - document accessible for UNIGE members only Limited access to UNIGE
Research group Recherche en infectiologie pédiatrique et en pédiatrie générale (853)
(ISO format)
AGORITSAS, Thomas et al. Adjusted Analyses in Studies Addressing Therapy and Harm: Users' Guides to the Medical Literature. In: JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association), 2017, vol. 317, n° 7, p. 748-759. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.20029 https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:108131

247 hits

0 download


Deposited on : 2018-09-20

Export document
Format :
Citation style :