Abstract:<section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Objective</h3><p>To define confounding bias in difference‐in‐difference studies and compare regression‐ and matching‐based estimators designed to correct bias due to observed confounders.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Data sources</h3><p>We simulated data from linear models that incorporated different confounding relationships: time‐invariant covariates with a time‐varying effect on the outcome, time‐varying covariates with a constant effect on the outcome, and time‐varying covariates with a time‐varying effect on the outcome. We considered a simple setting that is common in the applied literature: treatment is introduced at a single time point and there is no unobserved treatment effect heterogeneity.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Study design</h3><p>We compared the bias and root mean squared error of treatment effect estimates from six model specifications, including simple linear regression models and matching techniques.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Data collection</h3><p>Simulation code is provided for replication.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Principal findings</h3><p>Confounders in difference‐in‐differences are covariates that change differently over time in the treated and comparison group or have a time‐varying effect on the outcome. When such a confounding variable is measured, appropriately adjusting for this confounder (ie, including the confounder in a regression model that is consistent with the causal model) can provide unbiased estimates with optimal SE. However, when a time‐varying confounder is affected by treatment, recovering an unbiased causal effect using difference‐in‐differences is difficult.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Conclusions</h3><p>Confounding in difference‐in‐differences is more complicated than in cross‐sectional settings, from which techniques and intuition to address observed confounding cannot be imported wholesale. Instead, analysts should begin by postulating a causal model that relates covariates, both time‐varying and those with time‐varying effects on the outcome, to treatment. This causal model will then guide the specification of an appropriate analytical model (eg, using regression or matching) that can produce unbiased treatment effect estimates. We emphasize the importance of thoughtful incorporation of covariates to address confounding bias in difference‐in‐difference studies.</p></section>

Using negative controls to adjust for unmeasured confounding bias in time series studies

Invited Commentary: Bias Attenuation And Identification Of Causal Effects With Multiple Negative Controls

[On 'Negative control methods': related principles, methods and applications].

Multiply robust causal inference with double-negative control adjustment for categorical unmeasured confounding

A Confounding Bridge Approach for Double Negative Control Inference on Causal Effects

Using negative control populations to assess unmeasured confounding and direct effects

Advances in methodologies of negative controls: a scoping review

Kernel Methods for Unobserved Confounding: Negative Controls, Proxies, and Instruments

Single proxy control

Double Negative Control Inference in Test-Negative Design Studies of Vaccine Effectiveness

A New Method for Partial Correction of Residual Confounding in Time-Series and other Observational Studies

Using negative controls to identify causal effects with invalid instrumental variables

Identifying Effects of Multiple Treatments in the Presence of Unmeasured Confounding

Assessing the impact of unmeasured confounders for credible and reliable real-world evidence

The test-negative design with additional population controls: a practical approach to rapidly obtain information on the causes of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic

Instrumental variable analysis in the presence of unmeasured confounding

Confounding and regression adjustment in difference‐in‐differences studies

Controlling for unmeasured confounding and spatial misalignment in long-term air pollution and health studies

Real Effect or Bias? Good Practices for Evaluating the Robustness of Evidence From Comparative Observational Studies Through Quantitative Sensitivity Analysis for Unmeasured Confounding

Assessing the effectiveness of empirical calibration under different bias scenarios

Inference of Naturally Acquired Immunity Using a Self-matched Negative-Control Design