Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Adjustment for unmeasured confounding through informative priors for the confounder-outcome relation

Authors: Rolf H. H. Groenwold, Inbal Shofty, Milica Miočević, Maarten van Smeden, Irene Klugkist

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Observational studies of medical interventions or risk factors are potentially biased by unmeasured confounding. In this paper we propose a Bayesian approach by defining an informative prior for the confounder-outcome relation, to reduce bias due to unmeasured confounding. This approach was motivated by the phenomenon that the presence of unmeasured confounding may be reflected in observed confounder-outcome relations being unexpected in terms of direction or magnitude.

Methods

The approach was tested using simulation studies and was illustrated in an empirical example of the relation between LDL cholesterol levels and systolic blood pressure. In simulated data, a comparison of the estimated exposure-outcome relation was made between two frequentist multivariable linear regression models and three Bayesian multivariable linear regression models, which varied in the precision of the prior distributions. Simulated data contained information on a continuous exposure, a continuous outcome, and two continuous confounders (one considered measured one unmeasured), under various scenarios.

Results

In various scenarios the proposed Bayesian analysis with an correctly specified informative prior for the confounder-outcome relation substantially reduced bias due to unmeasured confounding and was less biased than the frequentist model with covariate adjustment for one of the two confounding variables. Also, in general the MSE was smaller for the Bayesian model with informative prior, compared to the other models.

Conclusions

As incorporating (informative) prior information for the confounder-outcome relation may reduce the bias due to unmeasured confounding, we consider this approach one of many possible sensitivity analyses of unmeasured confounding.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Hernan MA, Robins JM. Causal inference. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall / CRC, forthcoming; 2016. Hernan MA, Robins JM. Causal inference. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall / CRC, forthcoming; 2016.
2.
go back to reference Robins JM. Data, design, and background knowledge in etiologic inference. Epidemiology. 2001;12(3):313–20.CrossRef Robins JM. Data, design, and background knowledge in etiologic inference. Epidemiology. 2001;12(3):313–20.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference VanderWeele TJ, Shpitser I. On the definition of a confounder. Ann Stat. 2013;41(1):196–220.CrossRef VanderWeele TJ, Shpitser I. On the definition of a confounder. Ann Stat. 2013;41(1):196–220.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference VanderWeele TJ, Shpitser I. A new criterion for confounder selection. Biometrics. 2011;67(4):1406–13.CrossRef VanderWeele TJ, Shpitser I. A new criterion for confounder selection. Biometrics. 2011;67(4):1406–13.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70(1):41–55.CrossRef Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70(1):41–55.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J Am Stat Ass. 1984;79(387):516–24.CrossRef Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J Am Stat Ass. 1984;79(387):516–24.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Uddin MJ, Groenwold RH, Ali MS, de Boer A, Roes KC, Chowdhury MA, Klungel OH. Methods to control for unmeasured confounding in pharmacoepidemiology: an overview. Int J Clin Pharm. 2016;38(3):714–23.PubMed Uddin MJ, Groenwold RH, Ali MS, de Boer A, Roes KC, Chowdhury MA, Klungel OH. Methods to control for unmeasured confounding in pharmacoepidemiology: an overview. Int J Clin Pharm. 2016;38(3):714–23.PubMed
8.
go back to reference Hallas J, Pottegård A. Use of self-controlled designs in pharmacoepidemiology. J Intern Med. 2014;275(6):581–9.CrossRef Hallas J, Pottegård A. Use of self-controlled designs in pharmacoepidemiology. J Intern Med. 2014;275(6):581–9.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Whitaker HJ, Hocine MN, Farrington CP. The methodology of self-controlled case series studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 2009;18(1):7–26.CrossRef Whitaker HJ, Hocine MN, Farrington CP. The methodology of self-controlled case series studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 2009;18(1):7–26.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Chen Y, Briesacher BA. Use of instrumental variable in prescription drug research with observational data: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(6):687–700.CrossRef Chen Y, Briesacher BA. Use of instrumental variable in prescription drug research with observational data: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(6):687–700.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Martens EP, Pestman WR, de Boer A, Belitser SV, Klungel OH. Instrumental variables: application and limitations. Epidemiology. 2006;17(3):260–7.CrossRef Martens EP, Pestman WR, de Boer A, Belitser SV, Klungel OH. Instrumental variables: application and limitations. Epidemiology. 2006;17(3):260–7.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Lipsitch M, Tchetgen Tchetgen E, Cohen T. Negative controls: a tool for detecting confounding and bias in observational studies. Epidemiology. 2010;21(3):383–8.CrossRef Lipsitch M, Tchetgen Tchetgen E, Cohen T. Negative controls: a tool for detecting confounding and bias in observational studies. Epidemiology. 2010;21(3):383–8.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Stürmer T, Schneeweiss S, Avorn J, Glynn RJ. Adjusting effect estimates for unmeasured confounding with validation data using propensity score calibration. Am J Epidemiol. 2005;162(3):279–89.CrossRef Stürmer T, Schneeweiss S, Avorn J, Glynn RJ. Adjusting effect estimates for unmeasured confounding with validation data using propensity score calibration. Am J Epidemiol. 2005;162(3):279–89.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference White JE. A two stage design for the study of the relationship between a rare exposure and a rare disease. Am J Epidemiol. 1982;115:119–28.CrossRef White JE. A two stage design for the study of the relationship between a rare exposure and a rare disease. Am J Epidemiol. 1982;115:119–28.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Lin DY, Psaty BM, Kronmal RA. Assessing the sensitivity of regression results to unmeasured confounders in observational studies. Biometrics. 1998;54(3):948–63.CrossRef Lin DY, Psaty BM, Kronmal RA. Assessing the sensitivity of regression results to unmeasured confounders in observational studies. Biometrics. 1998;54(3):948–63.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Diaz I, van der Laan MJ. Sensitivity analysis for causal inference under unmeasured confounding and measurement error problems. Int J Biostat. 2013;9(2):149–60.PubMed Diaz I, van der Laan MJ. Sensitivity analysis for causal inference under unmeasured confounding and measurement error problems. Int J Biostat. 2013;9(2):149–60.PubMed
17.
go back to reference Groenwold RH, Nelson DB, Nichol KL, Hoes AW, Hak E. Sensitivity analyses to estimate the potential impact of unmeasured confounding in causal research. Int J Epidemiol. 2010;39(1):107–17.CrossRef Groenwold RH, Nelson DB, Nichol KL, Hoes AW, Hak E. Sensitivity analyses to estimate the potential impact of unmeasured confounding in causal research. Int J Epidemiol. 2010;39(1):107–17.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference McCandless LC, Gustafson P, Levy AR, Richardson S. Hierarchical priors for bias parameters in Bayesian sensitivity analysis for unmeasured confounding. Stat in Med. 2012;31(4):383–96.CrossRef McCandless LC, Gustafson P, Levy AR, Richardson S. Hierarchical priors for bias parameters in Bayesian sensitivity analysis for unmeasured confounding. Stat in Med. 2012;31(4):383–96.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference McCandless LC, Gustafson P, Levy A. Bayesian sensitivity analysis for unmeasured confounding in observational studies. Stat in Med. 2007;26(11):2331–47.CrossRef McCandless LC, Gustafson P, Levy A. Bayesian sensitivity analysis for unmeasured confounding in observational studies. Stat in Med. 2007;26(11):2331–47.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Greenland S. The impact of prior distributions for uncontrolled confounding and response bias: a case study of the relation of wire codes and magnetic fields to childhood leukemia. J Am Stat Ass. 2003;98(461):47–54.CrossRef Greenland S. The impact of prior distributions for uncontrolled confounding and response bias: a case study of the relation of wire codes and magnetic fields to childhood leukemia. J Am Stat Ass. 2003;98(461):47–54.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Dorie V, Harada M, Bohme Carnegie N, Hill J. A flexible, interpretable framework for assessing sensitivity to unmeasured confounding. Stat in Med. 2016;35:3453–70.CrossRef Dorie V, Harada M, Bohme Carnegie N, Hill J. A flexible, interpretable framework for assessing sensitivity to unmeasured confounding. Stat in Med. 2016;35:3453–70.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Gustafson P, McCandless L, Levy A, Richardson S. Simplified Bayesian sensitivity analysis for mismeasured and unobserved confounders. Biometrics. 2010;66(4):1129–37.CrossRef Gustafson P, McCandless L, Levy A, Richardson S. Simplified Bayesian sensitivity analysis for mismeasured and unobserved confounders. Biometrics. 2010;66(4):1129–37.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Schuit E, Groenwold RH, Harrell FE, de Kort WL, Kwee A, Mol BWJ, et al. Unexpected predictor–outcome associations in clinical prediction research: causes and solutions. CMAJ. 2013;185(10):E499–505.CrossRef Schuit E, Groenwold RH, Harrell FE, de Kort WL, Kwee A, Mol BWJ, et al. Unexpected predictor–outcome associations in clinical prediction research: causes and solutions. CMAJ. 2013;185(10):E499–505.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Pearl J. Causality: models, reasoning, and inference. 2nd ed. 2009. Cambridge University press, N Y. Pearl J. Causality: models, reasoning, and inference. 2nd ed. 2009. Cambridge University press, N Y.
25.
go back to reference Fewell Z, Smith GD, Sterne JA. The impact of residual and unmeasured confounding in epidemiologic studies: a simulation study. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;166(6):646–55.CrossRef Fewell Z, Smith GD, Sterne JA. The impact of residual and unmeasured confounding in epidemiologic studies: a simulation study. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;166(6):646–55.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Groenwold RH, Sterne JA, Lawlor DA, Moons KG, Hoes AW, Tilling K. Sensitivity analysis for the effects of multiple unmeasured confounders. Ann Epidemiol. 2016 Sep;26(9):605–11.CrossRef Groenwold RH, Sterne JA, Lawlor DA, Moons KG, Hoes AW, Tilling K. Sensitivity analysis for the effects of multiple unmeasured confounders. Ann Epidemiol. 2016 Sep;26(9):605–11.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Bhattacharya J, Vogt WB. Do instrumental variables belong in propensity scores? Int J Stat Econ. 2012;9(A12):107–27. Bhattacharya J, Vogt WB. Do instrumental variables belong in propensity scores? Int J Stat Econ. 2012;9(A12):107–27.
28.
go back to reference Pearl J. Invited commentary: understanding bias amplification. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;174(11):1223–7.CrossRef Pearl J. Invited commentary: understanding bias amplification. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;174(11):1223–7.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Simons PCG, Algra A, Van de Laak M, Grobbee D, Van der Graaf Y. Second manifestations of ARTerial disease (SMART) study: rationale and design. Eur J Epidemiol. 1999;15(9):773–81.CrossRef Simons PCG, Algra A, Van de Laak M, Grobbee D, Van der Graaf Y. Second manifestations of ARTerial disease (SMART) study: rationale and design. Eur J Epidemiol. 1999;15(9):773–81.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Stamler J. Epidemiologic findings on body mass and blood pressure in adults. Ann Epidemiol. 1991;1(4):347–62.CrossRef Stamler J. Epidemiologic findings on body mass and blood pressure in adults. Ann Epidemiol. 1991;1(4):347–62.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Adjustment for unmeasured confounding through informative priors for the confounder-outcome relation
Authors
Rolf H. H. Groenwold
Inbal Shofty
Milica Miočević
Maarten van Smeden
Irene Klugkist
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0634-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2018 Go to the issue