Real Effect or Bias? Good Practices for Evaluating the Robustness of Evidence From Comparative Observational Studies Through Quantitative Sensitivity Analysis for Unmeasured Confounding
Douglas Faries,Chenyin Gao,Xiang Zhang,Chad Hazlett,James Stamey,Shu Yang,Peng Ding,Mingyang Shan,Kristin Sheffield,Nancy Dreyer
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.2457
2024-12-06
Pharmaceutical Statistics
Abstract:The assumption of "no unmeasured confounders" is a critical but unverifiable assumption required for causal inference yet quantitative sensitivity analyses to assess robustness of real‐world evidence remains under‐utilized. The lack of use is likely in part due to complexity of implementation and often specific and restrictive data requirements for application of each method. With the advent of methods that are broadly applicable in that they do not require identification of a specific unmeasured confounder—along with publicly available code for implementation—roadblocks toward broader use of sensitivity analyses are decreasing. To spur greater application, here we offer a good practice guidance to address the potential for unmeasured confounding at both the design and analysis stages, including framing questions and an analytic toolbox for researchers. The questions at the design stage guide the researcher through steps evaluating the potential robustness of the design while encouraging gathering of additional data to reduce uncertainty due to potential confounding. At the analysis stage, the questions guide quantifying the robustness of the observed result and providing researchers with a clearer indication of the strength of their conclusions. We demonstrate the application of this guidance using simulated data based on an observational fibromyalgia study, applying multiple methods from our analytic toolbox for illustration purposes.
pharmacology & pharmacy,statistics & probability