The Experts below are selected from a list of 494760 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Yutaka Matsuyama - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
A comparison of estimators from self-controlled case series, case-crossover design, and sequence symmetry analysis for pharmacoepidemiological studies
BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2018Co-Authors: Yoshinori Takeuchi, Tomohiro Shinozaki, Yutaka MatsuyamaAbstract:Background Despite the frequent use of self-controlled methods in pharmacoepidemiological studies, the factors that may bias the estimates from these methods have not been adequately compared in real-world settings. Here, we comparatively examined the impact of a time-varying confounder and its interactions with time-invariant Confounders, time trends in exposures and events, restrictions, and misspecification of risk period durations on the estimators from three self-controlled methods. This study analyzed self-controlled case series (SCCS), case-crossover (CCO) design, and sequence symmetry analysis (SSA) using simulated and actual electronic medical records datasets. Methods We evaluated the performance of the three self-controlled methods in simulated cohorts for the following scenarios: 1) time-invariant confounding with interactions between the Confounders, 2) time-invariant and time-varying confounding without interactions, 3) time-invariant and time-varying confounding with interactions among the Confounders, 4) time trends in exposures and events, 5) restricted follow-up time based on event occurrence, and 6) patient restriction based on event history. The sensitivity of the estimators to misspecified risk period durations was also evaluated. As a case study, we applied these methods to evaluate the risk of macrolides on liver injury using electronic medical records. Results In the simulation analysis, time-varying confounding produced bias in the SCCS and CCO design estimates, which aggravated in the presence of interactions between the time-invariant and time-varying Confounders. The SCCS estimates were biased by time trends in both exposures and events. Erroneously short risk periods introduced bias to the CCO design estimate, whereas erroneously long risk periods introduced bias to the estimates of all three methods. Restricting the follow-up time led to severe bias in the SSA estimates. The SCCS estimates were sensitive to patient restriction. The case study showed that although macrolide use was significantly associated with increased liver injury occurrence in all methods, the value of the estimates varied. Conclusions The estimations of the three self-controlled methods depended on various underlying assumptions, and the violation of these assumptions may cause non-negligible bias in the resulting estimates. Pharmacoepidemiologists should select the appropriate self-controlled method based on how well the relevant key assumptions are satisfied with respect to the available data.
-
a comparison of estimators from self controlled case series case crossover design and sequence symmetry analysis for pharmacoepidemiological studies
BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2018Co-Authors: Yoshinori Takeuchi, Tomohiro Shinozaki, Yutaka MatsuyamaAbstract:Despite the frequent use of self-controlled methods in pharmacoepidemiological studies, the factors that may bias the estimates from these methods have not been adequately compared in real-world settings. Here, we comparatively examined the impact of a time-varying confounder and its interactions with time-invariant Confounders, time trends in exposures and events, restrictions, and misspecification of risk period durations on the estimators from three self-controlled methods. This study analyzed self-controlled case series (SCCS), case-crossover (CCO) design, and sequence symmetry analysis (SSA) using simulated and actual electronic medical records datasets. We evaluated the performance of the three self-controlled methods in simulated cohorts for the following scenarios: 1) time-invariant confounding with interactions between the Confounders, 2) time-invariant and time-varying confounding without interactions, 3) time-invariant and time-varying confounding with interactions among the Confounders, 4) time trends in exposures and events, 5) restricted follow-up time based on event occurrence, and 6) patient restriction based on event history. The sensitivity of the estimators to misspecified risk period durations was also evaluated. As a case study, we applied these methods to evaluate the risk of macrolides on liver injury using electronic medical records. In the simulation analysis, time-varying confounding produced bias in the SCCS and CCO design estimates, which aggravated in the presence of interactions between the time-invariant and time-varying Confounders. The SCCS estimates were biased by time trends in both exposures and events. Erroneously short risk periods introduced bias to the CCO design estimate, whereas erroneously long risk periods introduced bias to the estimates of all three methods. Restricting the follow-up time led to severe bias in the SSA estimates. The SCCS estimates were sensitive to patient restriction. The case study showed that although macrolide use was significantly associated with increased liver injury occurrence in all methods, the value of the estimates varied. The estimations of the three self-controlled methods depended on various underlying assumptions, and the violation of these assumptions may cause non-negligible bias in the resulting estimates. Pharmacoepidemiologists should select the appropriate self-controlled method based on how well the relevant key assumptions are satisfied with respect to the available data.
Yoshinori Takeuchi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
A comparison of estimators from self-controlled case series, case-crossover design, and sequence symmetry analysis for pharmacoepidemiological studies
BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2018Co-Authors: Yoshinori Takeuchi, Tomohiro Shinozaki, Yutaka MatsuyamaAbstract:Background Despite the frequent use of self-controlled methods in pharmacoepidemiological studies, the factors that may bias the estimates from these methods have not been adequately compared in real-world settings. Here, we comparatively examined the impact of a time-varying confounder and its interactions with time-invariant Confounders, time trends in exposures and events, restrictions, and misspecification of risk period durations on the estimators from three self-controlled methods. This study analyzed self-controlled case series (SCCS), case-crossover (CCO) design, and sequence symmetry analysis (SSA) using simulated and actual electronic medical records datasets. Methods We evaluated the performance of the three self-controlled methods in simulated cohorts for the following scenarios: 1) time-invariant confounding with interactions between the Confounders, 2) time-invariant and time-varying confounding without interactions, 3) time-invariant and time-varying confounding with interactions among the Confounders, 4) time trends in exposures and events, 5) restricted follow-up time based on event occurrence, and 6) patient restriction based on event history. The sensitivity of the estimators to misspecified risk period durations was also evaluated. As a case study, we applied these methods to evaluate the risk of macrolides on liver injury using electronic medical records. Results In the simulation analysis, time-varying confounding produced bias in the SCCS and CCO design estimates, which aggravated in the presence of interactions between the time-invariant and time-varying Confounders. The SCCS estimates were biased by time trends in both exposures and events. Erroneously short risk periods introduced bias to the CCO design estimate, whereas erroneously long risk periods introduced bias to the estimates of all three methods. Restricting the follow-up time led to severe bias in the SSA estimates. The SCCS estimates were sensitive to patient restriction. The case study showed that although macrolide use was significantly associated with increased liver injury occurrence in all methods, the value of the estimates varied. Conclusions The estimations of the three self-controlled methods depended on various underlying assumptions, and the violation of these assumptions may cause non-negligible bias in the resulting estimates. Pharmacoepidemiologists should select the appropriate self-controlled method based on how well the relevant key assumptions are satisfied with respect to the available data.
-
a comparison of estimators from self controlled case series case crossover design and sequence symmetry analysis for pharmacoepidemiological studies
BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2018Co-Authors: Yoshinori Takeuchi, Tomohiro Shinozaki, Yutaka MatsuyamaAbstract:Despite the frequent use of self-controlled methods in pharmacoepidemiological studies, the factors that may bias the estimates from these methods have not been adequately compared in real-world settings. Here, we comparatively examined the impact of a time-varying confounder and its interactions with time-invariant Confounders, time trends in exposures and events, restrictions, and misspecification of risk period durations on the estimators from three self-controlled methods. This study analyzed self-controlled case series (SCCS), case-crossover (CCO) design, and sequence symmetry analysis (SSA) using simulated and actual electronic medical records datasets. We evaluated the performance of the three self-controlled methods in simulated cohorts for the following scenarios: 1) time-invariant confounding with interactions between the Confounders, 2) time-invariant and time-varying confounding without interactions, 3) time-invariant and time-varying confounding with interactions among the Confounders, 4) time trends in exposures and events, 5) restricted follow-up time based on event occurrence, and 6) patient restriction based on event history. The sensitivity of the estimators to misspecified risk period durations was also evaluated. As a case study, we applied these methods to evaluate the risk of macrolides on liver injury using electronic medical records. In the simulation analysis, time-varying confounding produced bias in the SCCS and CCO design estimates, which aggravated in the presence of interactions between the time-invariant and time-varying Confounders. The SCCS estimates were biased by time trends in both exposures and events. Erroneously short risk periods introduced bias to the CCO design estimate, whereas erroneously long risk periods introduced bias to the estimates of all three methods. Restricting the follow-up time led to severe bias in the SSA estimates. The SCCS estimates were sensitive to patient restriction. The case study showed that although macrolide use was significantly associated with increased liver injury occurrence in all methods, the value of the estimates varied. The estimations of the three self-controlled methods depended on various underlying assumptions, and the violation of these assumptions may cause non-negligible bias in the resulting estimates. Pharmacoepidemiologists should select the appropriate self-controlled method based on how well the relevant key assumptions are satisfied with respect to the available data.
Simon G. Thompson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
multiple imputation for handling systematically missing Confounders in meta analysis of individual participant data
Statistics in Medicine, 2013Co-Authors: Matthieu Rescherigon, Sanne A E Peters, Ian R. White, Jonathan W Bartlett, Simon G. ThompsonAbstract:A variable is ‘systematically missing’ if it is missing for all individuals within particular studies in an individual participant data meta-analysis. When a systematically missing variable is a potential confounder in observational epidemiology, standard methods either fail to adjust the exposure–disease association for the potential confounder or exclude studies where it is missing. We propose a new approach to adjust for systematically missing Confounders based on multiple imputation by chained equations. Systematically missing data are imputed via multilevel regression models that allow for heterogeneity between studies. A simulation study compares various choices of imputation model. An illustration is given using data from eight studies estimating the association between carotid intima media thickness and subsequent risk of cardiovascular events. Results are compared with standard methods and also with an extension of a published method that exploits the relationship between fully adjusted and partially adjusted estimated effects through a multivariate random effects meta-analysis model. We conclude that multiple imputation provides a practicable approach that can handle arbitrary patterns of systematic missingness. Bias is reduced by including sufficient between-study random effects in the imputation model. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
-
Multiple imputation for handling systematically missing Confounders in meta‐analysis of individual participant data
Statistics in medicine, 2013Co-Authors: Matthieu Resche-rigon, Sanne A E Peters, Ian R. White, Jonathan W Bartlett, Simon G. ThompsonAbstract:A variable is ‘systematically missing’ if it is missing for all individuals within particular studies in an individual participant data meta-analysis. When a systematically missing variable is a potential confounder in observational epidemiology, standard methods either fail to adjust the exposure–disease association for the potential confounder or exclude studies where it is missing. We propose a new approach to adjust for systematically missing Confounders based on multiple imputation by chained equations. Systematically missing data are imputed via multilevel regression models that allow for heterogeneity between studies. A simulation study compares various choices of imputation model. An illustration is given using data from eight studies estimating the association between carotid intima media thickness and subsequent risk of cardiovascular events. Results are compared with standard methods and also with an extension of a published method that exploits the relationship between fully adjusted and partially adjusted estimated effects through a multivariate random effects meta-analysis model. We conclude that multiple imputation provides a practicable approach that can handle arbitrary patterns of systematic missingness. Bias is reduced by including sufficient between-study random effects in the imputation model. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Bart Bijnens - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Handling confounding variables in statistical shape analysis -- application to cardiac remodelling
Medical Image Analysis, 2020Co-Authors: Gabriel Bernardino, Oualid M. Benkarim, Maria Sanz-de La Garza, S Prat-gonzalez, Alvaro Sepúlveda-martínez, Fatima Crispi, Marta Sitges, Constantine Butakoff, Mathieu De Craene, Bart BijnensAbstract:Abstract Statistical shape analysis is a powerful tool to assess organ morphologies and find shape changes associated to a particular disease. However, imbalance in confounding factors, such as demographics might invalidate the analysis if not taken into consideration. Despite the methodological advances in the field, providing new methods that are able to capture complex and regional shape differences, the relationship between non-imaging information and shape variability has been overlooked. We present a linear statistical shape analysis framework that finds shape differences unassociated to a controlled set of confounding variables. It includes two confounding correction methods: confounding deflation and adjustment. We applied our framework to a cardiac magnetic resonance imaging dataset, consisting of the cardiac ventricles of 89 triathletes and 77 controls, to identify cardiac remodelling due to the practice of endurance exercise. To test robustness to Confounders, subsets of this dataset were generated by randomly removing controls with low body mass index, thus introducing imbalance. The analysis of the whole dataset indicates an increase of ventricular volumes and myocardial mass in athletes, which is consistent with the clinical literature. However, when Confounders are not taken into consideration no increase of myocardial mass is found. Using the downsampled datasets, we find that confounder adjustment methods are needed to find the real remodelling patterns in imbalanced datasets.
Tomohiro Shinozaki - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
A comparison of estimators from self-controlled case series, case-crossover design, and sequence symmetry analysis for pharmacoepidemiological studies
BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2018Co-Authors: Yoshinori Takeuchi, Tomohiro Shinozaki, Yutaka MatsuyamaAbstract:Background Despite the frequent use of self-controlled methods in pharmacoepidemiological studies, the factors that may bias the estimates from these methods have not been adequately compared in real-world settings. Here, we comparatively examined the impact of a time-varying confounder and its interactions with time-invariant Confounders, time trends in exposures and events, restrictions, and misspecification of risk period durations on the estimators from three self-controlled methods. This study analyzed self-controlled case series (SCCS), case-crossover (CCO) design, and sequence symmetry analysis (SSA) using simulated and actual electronic medical records datasets. Methods We evaluated the performance of the three self-controlled methods in simulated cohorts for the following scenarios: 1) time-invariant confounding with interactions between the Confounders, 2) time-invariant and time-varying confounding without interactions, 3) time-invariant and time-varying confounding with interactions among the Confounders, 4) time trends in exposures and events, 5) restricted follow-up time based on event occurrence, and 6) patient restriction based on event history. The sensitivity of the estimators to misspecified risk period durations was also evaluated. As a case study, we applied these methods to evaluate the risk of macrolides on liver injury using electronic medical records. Results In the simulation analysis, time-varying confounding produced bias in the SCCS and CCO design estimates, which aggravated in the presence of interactions between the time-invariant and time-varying Confounders. The SCCS estimates were biased by time trends in both exposures and events. Erroneously short risk periods introduced bias to the CCO design estimate, whereas erroneously long risk periods introduced bias to the estimates of all three methods. Restricting the follow-up time led to severe bias in the SSA estimates. The SCCS estimates were sensitive to patient restriction. The case study showed that although macrolide use was significantly associated with increased liver injury occurrence in all methods, the value of the estimates varied. Conclusions The estimations of the three self-controlled methods depended on various underlying assumptions, and the violation of these assumptions may cause non-negligible bias in the resulting estimates. Pharmacoepidemiologists should select the appropriate self-controlled method based on how well the relevant key assumptions are satisfied with respect to the available data.
-
a comparison of estimators from self controlled case series case crossover design and sequence symmetry analysis for pharmacoepidemiological studies
BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2018Co-Authors: Yoshinori Takeuchi, Tomohiro Shinozaki, Yutaka MatsuyamaAbstract:Despite the frequent use of self-controlled methods in pharmacoepidemiological studies, the factors that may bias the estimates from these methods have not been adequately compared in real-world settings. Here, we comparatively examined the impact of a time-varying confounder and its interactions with time-invariant Confounders, time trends in exposures and events, restrictions, and misspecification of risk period durations on the estimators from three self-controlled methods. This study analyzed self-controlled case series (SCCS), case-crossover (CCO) design, and sequence symmetry analysis (SSA) using simulated and actual electronic medical records datasets. We evaluated the performance of the three self-controlled methods in simulated cohorts for the following scenarios: 1) time-invariant confounding with interactions between the Confounders, 2) time-invariant and time-varying confounding without interactions, 3) time-invariant and time-varying confounding with interactions among the Confounders, 4) time trends in exposures and events, 5) restricted follow-up time based on event occurrence, and 6) patient restriction based on event history. The sensitivity of the estimators to misspecified risk period durations was also evaluated. As a case study, we applied these methods to evaluate the risk of macrolides on liver injury using electronic medical records. In the simulation analysis, time-varying confounding produced bias in the SCCS and CCO design estimates, which aggravated in the presence of interactions between the time-invariant and time-varying Confounders. The SCCS estimates were biased by time trends in both exposures and events. Erroneously short risk periods introduced bias to the CCO design estimate, whereas erroneously long risk periods introduced bias to the estimates of all three methods. Restricting the follow-up time led to severe bias in the SSA estimates. The SCCS estimates were sensitive to patient restriction. The case study showed that although macrolide use was significantly associated with increased liver injury occurrence in all methods, the value of the estimates varied. The estimations of the three self-controlled methods depended on various underlying assumptions, and the violation of these assumptions may cause non-negligible bias in the resulting estimates. Pharmacoepidemiologists should select the appropriate self-controlled method based on how well the relevant key assumptions are satisfied with respect to the available data.