RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Bias Reduction through Analysis of Competing Events (BRACE): A Novel Method to Mitigate Bias from Residual Confounding in Observational Data
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.12.18.20248507
DO 10.1101/2020.12.18.20248507
A1 Mell, Loren K.
A1 Nelson, Tyler
A1 Thompson, Caroline A.
A1 Williamson, Casey W.
A1 Vitzthum, Lucas K.
A1 Zou, Jingjing
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/12/22/2020.12.18.20248507.abstract
AB Purpose To introduce a method to mitigate bias from residual confounding in non-randomized data and examine its performance under varying conditions using simulated data.Methods We developed a method called Bias Reduction through Analysis of Competing Events (BRACE) based on a proportional relative hazards model. We followed recommended guidelines (ADEMP) established for the conduct of simulation studies. The primary estimand of interest was the treatment effect on the composite hazard for a primary or competing event. We compared the BRACE method to a standard Cox proportional hazards regression model in the presence of an unmeasured confounder, using a parametric (Weibull) simulation model. We examined estimator distributions, bias, mean squared error (MSE), and coverage probability for both methods using ridge, box-and-whisker, forest, and zip plots, respectively. Comparisons with a hypothetical validation estimate treating the confounder as measurable were also performed.Results We presented 16 simulation scenarios under varying parameters. In simulations where residual confounding was present, the BRACE method uniformly reduced both bias and MSE compared to standard Cox models. In the scenario of moderate bias with an effective but non-toxic treatment, MSE was 3.51×10−2 with the standard model vs. 0.259×10−2 with the BRACE method. In the absence of bias, the BRACE method introduced bias toward the null (2.90 x10−2) compared to the standard method (0.331×10−2), albeit with lower MSE (0.341 x10−2 vs. 0.484 x10−2, respectively). Relative to the standard approach, the BRACE method markedly improved coverage probability, but with a tendency toward overcorrection in the case of the effective but non-toxic treatment. Conclusions were similar under different parameter assumptions.Conclusion The BRACE method can reduce bias and MSE in the setting of residual confounding.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNoneAuthor 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:University of California San Diego Institutional Review BoardAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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.YesSimulated data are able to be generated from the code provided or can be made available upon request to the authors.