Adjustment for Mismeasured Exposure using Validation Data and Propensity Scores

Propensity score methods are widely used to analyze observational studies in which patient characteristics might not be balanced by treatment group. These methods assume that exposure, or treatment assignment, is error-free, but in reality these variables can be subject to measurement error. This arises in the context of comparative effectiveness research, using observational administrative claims data in which accurate procedural codes are not always available. When using propensity score based methods, this error affects both the exposure variable directly, as well as the propensity score. We propose a two step maximum likelihood approach using validation data to adjust for the measurement error. First, we use a likelihood approach to estimate an adjusted propensity score. Using the adjusted propensity score, we then use a likelihood approach on the outcome model to adjust for measurement error in the exposure variable directly. In addition, we show the bias introduced when using error-prone treatment in the inverse probability weighting (IPW) estimator and propose an approach to eliminate this bias. Simulations show our proposed approaches reduce the bias and mean squared error (MSE) of the treatment effect estimator compared to using the error-prone treatment assignment.

[1]  Til Stürmer,et al.  Adjusting effect estimates for unmeasured confounding with validation data using propensity score calibration. , 2005, American journal of epidemiology.

[2]  J. Robins,et al.  Marginal Structural Models and Causal Inference in Epidemiology , 2000, Epidemiology.

[3]  Sylvia Richardson,et al.  Adjustment for Missing Confounders Using External Validation Data and Propensity Scores , 2012 .

[4]  Elizabeth A Stuart,et al.  Propensity score techniques and the assessment of measured covariate balance to test causal associations in psychological research. , 2010, Psychological methods.

[5]  S. Cole,et al.  Invited Commentary: Causal diagrams and measurement bias. , 2009, American journal of epidemiology.

[6]  Gary King,et al.  MatchIt: Nonparametric Preprocessing for Parametric Causal Inference , 2011 .

[7]  S. Greenland,et al.  Exposure-measurement error is frequently ignored when interpreting epidemiologic study results , 2007, European Journal of Epidemiology.

[8]  C. Drake Effects of misspecification of the propensity score on estimators of treatment effect , 1993 .

[9]  D. Rubin,et al.  Reducing Bias in Observational Studies Using Subclassification on the Propensity Score , 1984 .

[10]  P. Rosenbaum Model-Based Direct Adjustment , 1987 .

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

[12]  Els Goetghebeur,et al.  Comparison of causal effect estimators under exposure misclassification , 2010 .

[13]  J. Schafer,et al.  Average causal effects from nonrandomized studies: a practical guide and simulated example. , 2008, Psychological methods.

[14]  M Soledad Cepeda,et al.  Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders. , 2003, American journal of epidemiology.

[15]  E. Stuart,et al.  Using full matching to estimate causal effects in nonexperimental studies: examining the relationship between adolescent marijuana use and adult outcomes. , 2008, Developmental psychology.

[16]  Jerome P. Reiter,et al.  A Comparison of Experimental and Observational Data Analyses , 2005 .

[17]  Gary King,et al.  Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference , 2007, Political Analysis.

[18]  Elizabeth A Stuart,et al.  Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. , 2010, Statistical science : a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics.

[19]  J. R. Lockwood,et al.  Inverse probability weighting with error-prone covariates. , 2013, Biometrika.