Effects of Adjusting for Instrumental Variables on Bias and Precision of Effect Estimates

Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02120, USA.
American journal of epidemiology (Impact Factor: 4.98). 12/2011; 174(11):1213-22. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwr364
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Recent theoretical studies have shown that conditioning on an instrumental variable (IV), a variable that is associated with exposure but not associated with outcome except through exposure, can increase both bias and variance of exposure effect estimates. Although these findings have obvious implications in cases of known IVs, their meaning remains unclear in the more common scenario where investigators are uncertain whether a measured covariate meets the criteria for an IV or rather a confounder. The authors present results from two simulation studies designed to provide insight into the problem of conditioning on potential IVs in routine epidemiologic practice. The simulations explored the effects of conditioning on IVs, near-IVs (predictors of exposure that are weakly associated with outcome), and confounders on the bias and variance of a binary exposure effect estimate. The results indicate that effect estimates which are conditional on a perfect IV or near-IV may have larger bias and variance than the unconditional estimate. However, in most scenarios considered, the increases in error due to conditioning were small compared with the total estimation error. In these cases, minimizing unmeasured confounding should be the priority when selecting variables for adjustment, even at the risk of conditioning on IVs.

Download full-text


Available from: Marshall M Joffe, Jul 06, 2015
1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To illustrate that matching on provider may exacerbate, not remove, bias. The degree of confounding bias depends in part on the proportions of treatment variation that can be ascribed to confounders and to instruments, respectively. This commentary raises the specific example of bias by matching on hospital induced in a study of coronary artery bypass graft surgery patients and illustrates the effect of matching on provider in a constructed example. Matching on provider removes a "benign" source of treatment variability, leaving unmeasured confounders as potentially the most important determinants of treatment. Researchers need to articulate the presumed source of pseudorandom variation in observational studies and need to take care not to reduce their effect through unnecessary control.
    Journal of clinical epidemiology 08/2013; 66(8 Suppl):S65-8. DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.02.012 · 5.48 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Comparative-effectiveness research (CER) aims to produce actionable evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of medical products and interventions as they are used outside of controlled research settings. Although CER evidence regarding medications is particularly needed shortly after market approval, key methodological challenges include (i) potential bias due to channeling of patients to the newly marketed medication because of various patient-, physician-, and system-related factors; (ii) rapid changes in the characteristics of the user population during the early phase of marketing; and (iii) lack of timely data and the often small number of users in the first few months of marketing. We propose a mix of approaches to generate comparative-effectiveness data in the early marketing period, including sequential cohort monitoring with secondary health-care data and propensity score (PS) balancing, as well as extended follow-up of phase III and phase IV trials, indirect comparisons of placebo-controlled trials, and modeling and simulation of virtual trials.
    Clinical Pharmacology &#38 Therapeutics 11/2011; 90(6):777-90. DOI:10.1038/clpt.2011.235 · 7.39 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In choosing covariates for adjustment or inclusion in propensity score analysis, researchers must weigh the benefit of reducing confounding bias carried by those covariates against the risk of amplifying residual bias carried by unmeasured confounders. The latter is characteristic of covariates that act like instrumental variables-that is, variables that are more strongly associated with the exposure than with the outcome. In this issue of the Journal (Am J Epidemiol. 2011;174(11):1213-1222), Myers et al. compare the bias amplification of a near-instrumental variable with its bias-reducing potential and suggest that, in practice, the latter outweighs the former. The author of this commentary sheds broader light on this comparison by considering the cumulative effects of conditioning on multiple covariates and showing that bias amplification may build up at a faster rate than bias reduction. The author further derives a partial order on sets of covariates which reveals preference for conditioning on outcome-related, rather than exposure-related, confounders.
    American journal of epidemiology 12/2011; 174(11):1223-7; discussion pg 1228-9. DOI:10.1093/aje/kwr352 · 4.98 Impact Factor