Author:
Schuster Noah A.,Rijnhart Judith J. M.,Bosman Lisa C.,Twisk Jos W. R.,Klausch Thomas,Heymans Martijn W.
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Confounding is a common issue in epidemiological research. Commonly used confounder-adjustment methods include multivariable regression analysis and propensity score methods. Although it is common practice to assess the linearity assumption for the exposure-outcome effect, most researchers do not assess linearity of the relationship between the confounder and the exposure and between the confounder and the outcome before adjusting for the confounder in the analysis. Failing to take the true non-linear functional form of the confounder-exposure and confounder-outcome associations into account may result in an under- or overestimation of the true exposure effect. Therefore, this paper aims to demonstrate the importance of assessing the linearity assumption for confounder-exposure and confounder-outcome associations and the importance of correctly specifying these associations when the linearity assumption is violated.
Methods
A Monte Carlo simulation study was used to assess and compare the performance of confounder-adjustment methods when the functional form of the confounder-exposure and confounder-outcome associations were misspecified (i.e., linearity was wrongly assumed) and correctly specified (i.e., linearity was rightly assumed) under multiple sample sizes. An empirical data example was used to illustrate that the misspecification of confounder-exposure and confounder-outcome associations leads to bias.
Results
The simulation study illustrated that the exposure effect estimate will be biased when for propensity score (PS) methods the confounder-exposure association is misspecified. For methods in which the outcome is regressed on the confounder or the PS, the exposure effect estimate will be biased if the confounder-outcome association is misspecified. In the empirical data example, correct specification of the confounder-exposure and confounder-outcome associations resulted in smaller exposure effect estimates.
Conclusion
When attempting to remove bias by adjusting for confounding, misspecification of the confounder-exposure and confounder-outcome associations might actually introduce bias. It is therefore important that researchers not only assess the linearity of the exposure-outcome effect, but also of the confounder-exposure or confounder-outcome associations depending on the confounder-adjustment method used.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Health Informatics,Epidemiology
Reference45 articles.
1. Pearl J. Causality. 2nd ed: Cambridge University Press; 2009.
2. Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res. 2011;46(3):399–424.
3. Hernan MA, Robins JM. Causal inference: what if. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2020.
4. Harrell FE. Regression modeling strategies: with applications to linear models, logistic and ordinal regression, and survival analysis. 2nd ed: Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland; 2003.
5. Guo S, Fraser MW. Propensity score analysis: statistical methods and applications. United States of America: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2014.
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献