Good Research Practices for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Approaches To Mitigate Bias And Confounding In The Design Of Non-randomized Studies of Treatment Effects Using Secondary Databases: Report 2

Published Dec 2009

Citation

Cox E, Martin BC, Van Staa T, Garbe E, Siebert U, Johnson ML, Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: approaches to mitigate bias and confounding in the design of non-randomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: The ISPOR good research practices for retrospective database analysis task force–Part II. Value Health 2009;12:1053-61.

Abstract

Objectives: The goal of comparative effectiveness analysis is to examine the relationship between two variables, treatment, or exposure and effectiveness or outcome. Unlike data obtained through randomized controlled trials, researchers face greater challenges with causal inference with observational studies. Recognizing these challenges, a task force was formed to develop a guidance document on methodological approaches to addresses these biases. Methods: The task force was commissioned and a Chair was selected by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Board of Directors in October 2007. This report, the second of three reported in this issue of the Journal, discusses the inherent biases when using secondary data sources for comparative effectiveness analysis and provides methodological recommendations to help mitigate these biases. Results: The task force report provides recommendations and tools for researchers to mitigate threats to validity from bias and confounding in measurement of exposure and outcome. Recommendations on design of study included: the need for data analysis plan with causal diagrams; detailed attention to classification bias in definition of exposure and clinical outcome; careful and appropriate use of restriction; extreme care to identify and control for confounding factors, including time-dependent confounding. Conclusions: Design of nonrandomized studies of comparative effectiveness face several daunting issues, including measurement of exposure and outcome challenged by misclassification and confounding. Use of causal diagrams and restriction are two techniques that can improve the theoretical basis for analyzing treatment effects in study populations of more homogeneity, with reduced loss of generalizability.

Keywords: comparative effectiveness, epidemiology, nonrandomized studies, research design, secondary databases.

Full Content

Download PDF

Related Content

Questions?

For any questions about this report please contact us.

Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×