RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Quantitative bias analysis in practice: Review of software for regression with unmeasured confounding
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.02.15.22270975
DO 10.1101/2022.02.15.22270975
A1 Kawabata, E
A1 Tilling, K
A1 Groenwold, RHH
A1 Hughes, RA
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/11/08/2022.02.15.22270975.abstract
AB Failure to appropriately account for unmeasured confounding may lead to erroneous conclusions. Quantitative bias analysis (QBA) can be used to quantify the potential impact of unmeasured confounding or how much unmeasured confounding would be needed to change a study’s conclusions. Currently, QBA methods are not routinely implemented, partly due to a lack of knowledge about accessible software. We review the latest developments in QBA software between 2011 to 2021 and compare five different programs applicable when fitting a linear regression: treatSens, causalsens, sensemakr, EValue, and konfound. We illustrate application of these programs to two datasets and provide code to assist analysts in future use of these software programs. Our review found 21 programs with most created post 2016. All are implementations of a deterministic QBA, and the majority are available in the free statistical software environment R. Many programs include features such as benchmarking and graphical displays of the QBA results to aid interpretation. Out of the five programs we compared, sensemakr performs the most detailed QBA and includes a benchmarking feature for multiple unmeasured confounders. The diversity of QBA methods presents challenges to the widespread uptake of QBA among applied researchers. Provision of detailed QBA guidelines would be beneficial.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementFunded by a Sir Henry Dale Fellowship that is jointly funded by the Wellcome Trust and the Royal Society (grant 215408/Z/19/Z), and MRC grant (grants MC UU 00011/3).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Barry Caerphilly Growth study: Ethical approval for the study was given by the Bro Taf Health Authority Local Research Ethics Committee. Data from the NHANES study is publicly available https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/nhanes3/default.aspx.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesNHANES study data is publicly available online. Barry Caerphilly Growth study data is available on request from the study investigator.