| 1. |
- Courvoisier, DS, et al.
(author)
-
EULAR points to consider when analysing and reporting comparative effectiveness research using observational data in rheumatology
- 2022
-
In: Annals of the rheumatic diseases. - : BMJ. - 1468-2060 .- 0003-4967. ; 81:6, s. 780-785
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Comparing treatment effectiveness over time in observational settings is hampered by several major threats, among them confounding and attrition bias.ObjectivesTo develop European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) points to consider (PtC) when analysing and reporting comparative effectiveness research using observational data in rheumatology.MethodsThe PtC were developed using a three-step process according to the EULAR Standard Operating Procedures. Based on a systematic review of methods currently used in comparative effectiveness studies, the PtC were formulated through two in-person meetings of a multidisciplinary task force and a two-round online Delphi, using expert opinion and a simulation study. Finally, feedback from a larger audience was used to refine the PtC. Mean levels of agreement among the task force were calculated.ResultsThree overarching principles and 10 PtC were formulated, addressing, in particular, potential biases relating to attrition or confounding by indication. Building on Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines, these PtC insist on the definition of the baseline for analysis and treatment effectiveness. They also focus on the reasons for stopping treatment as an important consideration when assessing effectiveness. Finally, the PtC recommend providing key information on missingness patterns.ConclusionTo improve the reliability of an increasing number of real-world comparative effectiveness studies in rheumatology, special attention is required to reduce potential biases. Adherence to clear recommendations for the analysis and reporting of observational comparative effectiveness studies will improve the trustworthiness of their results.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Lauper, K, et al.
(author)
-
Analysing and reporting of observational data: a systematic review informing the EULAR points to consider when analysing and reporting comparative effectiveness research with observational data in rheumatology
- 2021
-
In: RMD open. - : BMJ. - 2056-5933. ; 7:3
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- To evaluate the analysis and reporting of comparative effectiveness research with observational data in rheumatology, informing European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology points to consider.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature review searching Ovid MEDLINE for original articles comparing drug effectiveness in longitudinal observational studies, published in key rheumatology journals between 2008 and 2019. The extracted information focused on reporting and types of analyses. We evaluated if year of publication impacted results.ResultsFrom 9969 abstracts reviewed, 211 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Ten per cent of studies did not adjust for confounding factors. Some studies did not explain how they chose covariates for adjustment (9%), used bivariate screening (21%) and/or stepwise selection procedures (18%). Only 33% studies reported the number of patients lost to follow-up and 25% acknowledged attrition (drop-out or treatment cessation). To account for attrition, studies used non-responder imputation, followed by last observation carried forward (LOCF) and complete case (CC) analyses. Most studies did not report the number of missing data on covariates (83%), and when addressed, 49% used CC and 11% LOCF. Date of publication did not influence the results.ConclusionMost studies did not acknowledge missing data and attrition, and a tenth did not adjust for any confounding factors. When attempting to account for them, several studies used methods which potentially increase bias (LOCF, CC analysis, bivariate screening…). This study shows that there is no improvement over the last decade, highlighting the need for recommendations for the assessment and reporting of comparative drug effectiveness in observational data in rheumatology.
|
|
| 5. |
- Mongin, D, et al.
(author)
-
Accounting for missing data caused by drug cessation in observational comparative effectiveness research: a simulation study
- 2022
-
In: Annals of the rheumatic diseases. - : BMJ. - 1468-2060 .- 0003-4967. ; 81:5, s. 729-736
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- To assess the performance of statistical methods used to compare the effectiveness between drugs in an observational setting in the presence of attrition.MethodsIn this simulation study, we compared the estimations of low disease activity (LDA) at 1 year produced by complete case analysis (CC), last observation carried forward (LOCF), LUNDEX, non-responder imputation (NRI), inverse probability weighting (IPW) and multiple imputations of the outcome. All methods were adjusted for confounders. The reasons to stop the treatments were included in the multiple imputation method (confounder-adjusted response rate with attrition correction, CARRAC) and were either included (IPW2) or not (IPW1) in the IPW method. A realistic simulation data set was generated from a real-world data collection. The amount of missing data caused by attrition and its dependence on the ‘true’ value of the data missing were varied to assess the robustness of each method to these changes.ResultsLUNDEX and NRI strongly underestimated the absolute LDA difference between two treatments, and their estimates were highly sensitive to the amount of attrition. IPW1 and CC overestimated the absolute LDA difference between the two treatments and the overestimation increased with increasing attrition or when missingness depended on disease activity at 1 year. IPW2 and CARRAC produced unbiased estimations, but IPW2 had a greater sensitivity to the missing pattern of data and the amount of attrition than CARRAC.ConclusionsOnly multiple imputation and IPW2, which considered both confounding and treatment cessation reasons, produced accurate comparative effectiveness estimates.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
