The use of propensity scores and observational data to estimate randomized controlled trial generalizability bias

Although randomized controlled trials are considered the 'gold standard' for clinical studies, the use of exclusion criteria may impact the external validity of the results. It is unknown whether estimators of effect size are biased by excluding a portion of the target population from enrollment. We propose to use observational data to estimate the bias due to enrollment restrictions, which we term generalizability bias. In this paper, we introduce a class of estimators for the generalizability bias and use simulation to study its properties in the presence of non-constant treatment effects. We find the surprising result that our estimators can be unbiased for the true generalizability bias even when all potentially confounding variables are not measured. In addition, our proposed doubly robust estimator performs well even for mis-specified models.

[1]  C. Shen,et al.  Propensity score-based sensitivity analysis method for uncontrolled confounding. , 2011, American journal of epidemiology.

[2]  P. Austin An Introduction to Propensity Score Methods for Reducing the Effects of Confounding in Observational Studies , 2011, Multivariate behavioral research.

[3]  Sander Greenland,et al.  Multiple‐bias modelling for analysis of observational data , 2005 .

[4]  P. Rothwell,et al.  External validity of randomised controlled trials: “To whom do the results of this trial apply?” , 2005, The Lancet.

[5]  R. D'Agostino Adjustment Methods: Propensity Score Methods for Bias Reduction in the Comparison of a Treatment to a Non‐Randomized Control Group , 2005 .

[6]  D. Altman Poor-quality medical research: what can journals do? , 2002, JAMA.

[7]  Mark Zimmerman,et al.  Exclusion Criteria Used in Antidepressant Efficacy Trials: Consistency Across Studies and Representativeness of Samples Included , 2004, The Journal of nervous and mental disease.

[8]  N. Thomson,et al.  Cigarette smoking impairs the therapeutic response to oral corticosteroids in chronic asthma. , 2003, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[9]  D. Rubin,et al.  The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects , 1983 .

[10]  Richard Beasley,et al.  External validity of randomised controlled trials in asthma: to whom do the results of the trials apply? , 2006, Thorax.

[11]  R. DeRubeis,et al.  Are samples in randomized controlled trials of psychotherapy representative of community outpatients? A new methodology and initial findings. , 2003, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[12]  J. Lunceford,et al.  Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of causal treatment effects: a comparative study , 2004, Statistics in medicine.

[13]  A. Kiss,et al.  Eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials published in high-impact general medical journals: a systematic sampling review. , 2007, JAMA.

[14]  Jennifer L. Hill,et al.  Bayesian Nonparametric Modeling for Causal Inference , 2011 .

[15]  Roderick J. A. Little,et al.  Statistical Analysis with Missing Data: Little/Statistical Analysis with Missing Data , 2002 .

[16]  Joseph Kang,et al.  Demystifying Double Robustness: A Comparison of Alternative Strategies for Estimating a Population Mean from Incomplete Data , 2007, 0804.2958.

[17]  K. Humphreys,et al.  Use of exclusion criteria in selecting research subjects and its effect on the generalizability of alcohol treatment outcome studies. , 2000, The American journal of psychiatry.

[18]  Kerrie Mengersen,et al.  Adjusted Likelihoods for Synthesizing Empirical Evidence from Studies that Differ in Quality and Design: Effects of Environmental Tobacco Smoke , 2004 .

[19]  William Gardner,et al.  Generalizing from clinical trial data: A case study. The risk of suicidality among pediatric antidepressant users , 2008, Statistics in medicine.

[20]  M. Fortin,et al.  Randomized Controlled Trials: Do They Have External Validity for Patients With Multiple Comorbidities? , 2006, The Annals of Family Medicine.

[21]  Eloise E Kaizar Estimating treatment effect via simple cross design synthesis , 2011, Statistics in medicine.

[22]  S. Marcus,et al.  Assessing non-consent bias with parallel randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials. , 1997, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[23]  K. Alexander,et al.  Representation of elderly persons and women in published randomized trials of acute coronary syndromes. , 2001, JAMA.

[24]  Harold I Feldman,et al.  Individual patient‐ versus group‐level data meta‐regressions for the investigation of treatment effect modifiers: ecological bias rears its ugly head , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[25]  G. Bugeja,et al.  Exclusion of elderly people from clinical research: a descriptive study of published reports , 1997, BMJ.

[26]  A. Hoes,et al.  Differences in interaction and subgroup-specific effects were observed between randomized and nonrandomized studies in three empirical examples. , 2013, Journal of clinical epidemiology.