Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Mar 28:9:185-193.
doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S129879. eCollection 2017.

Confounding in observational studies based on large health care databases: problems and potential solutions - a primer for the clinician

Affiliations

Confounding in observational studies based on large health care databases: problems and potential solutions - a primer for the clinician

Mette Nørgaard et al. Clin Epidemiol. .

Abstract

Population-based health care databases are a valuable tool for observational studies as they reflect daily medical practice for large and representative populations. A constant challenge in observational designs is, however, to rule out confounding, and the value of these databases for a given study question accordingly depends on completeness and validity of the information on confounding factors. In this article, we describe the types of potential confounding factors typically lacking in large health care databases and suggest strategies for confounding control when data on important confounders are unavailable. Using Danish health care databases as examples, we present the use of proxy measures for important confounders and the use of external adjustment. We also briefly discuss the potential value of active comparators, high-dimensional propensity scores, self-controlled designs, pseudorandomization, and the use of positive or negative controls.

Keywords: confounding; health care databases; observational studies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
First CD4 count and mortality hazard rate in an HIV-positive population. Notes: Predicted hazards are displayed as solid lines. Dashed line shows extrapolated prediction if all patients were treatment eligible at first CD4 count. Dots are hazards predicted for CD4 count bins of width 10 cells. Copyright © 2014 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Figure originally published by Bor et al. Regression discontinuity designs in epidemiology: causal inference without randomized trials. Epidemiology 2014;25:729–737.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Causal diagram showing an ideal negative control exposure B for use in evaluating studies of the causal relationship between exposure A and outcome Y. Notes: B should ideally have the same incoming arrows as A. U is the set of uncontrolled confounders. L is assumed measured and controlled for. Modified with permission from Lipsitch et al. Negative controls: a tool for detecting confounding and bias in observational studies.in Epidemiology 2010;21(3):383–388. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20335814.

References

    1. Rothman KJ. Modern Epidemiology. 1st ed. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company; 1986.
    1. Senn S. Seven myths of randomisation in clinical trials. Stat Med. 2013;32(9):1439–1450. - PubMed
    1. Britton A, McKee M, Black N, McPherson K, Sanderson C, Bain C. Threats to applicability of randomised trials: exclusions and selective participation. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1999;4(2):112–121. - PubMed
    1. Booth CM, Tannock IF. Randomised controlled trials and population-based observational research: partners in the evolution of medical evidence. Br J Cancer. 2014;110(3):551–555. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Reyes C, Pottegard A, Schwarz P, et al. Real-life and RCT participants: alendronate users versus FITs’ trial eligibility criterion. Calcif Tissue Int. 2016;99(3):243–249. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources