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
Review
. 2023 Jun;32(6):599-606.
doi: 10.1002/pds.5623. Epub 2023 Apr 4.

Pragmatic considerations for negative control outcome studies to guide non-randomized comparative analyses: A narrative review

Sara N Levintow  1   2 , Carrie M Nielson  3 , Rohini K Hernandez  3 , Alexander Breskin  1   2 , David Pritchard  2 , Timothy L Lash  4 , Kenneth J Rothman  5 , David Gilbertson  6 , Paul Muntner  7 , Cathy Critchlow  3 , M Alan Brookhart  2   8 , Brian D Bradbury  3
Affiliations
Review

Pragmatic considerations for negative control outcome studies to guide non-randomized comparative analyses: A narrative review

Sara N Levintow et al. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2023 Jun.

Abstract

Purpose: This narrative review describes the application of negative control outcome (NCO) methods to assess potential bias due to unmeasured or mismeasured confounders in non-randomized comparisons of drug effectiveness and safety. An NCO is assumed to have no causal relationship with a treatment under study while subject to the same confounding structure as the treatment and outcome of interest; an association between treatment and NCO then reflects the potential for uncontrolled confounding between treatment and outcome.

Methods: We focus on two recently completed NCO studies that assessed the comparability of outcome risk for patients initiating different osteoporosis medications and lipid-lowering therapies, illustrating several ways in which confounding may result. In these studies, NCO methods were implemented in claims-based data sources, with the results used to guide the decision to proceed with comparative effectiveness or safety analyses.

Results: Based on this research, we provide recommendations for future NCO studies, including considerations for the identification of confounding mechanisms in the target patient population, the selection of NCOs expected to satisfy required assumptions, the interpretation of NCO effect estimates, and the mitigation of uncontrolled confounding detected in NCO analyses. We propose the use of NCO studies prior to initiating comparative effectiveness or safety research, providing information on the potential presence of uncontrolled confounding in those comparative analyses.

Conclusions: Given the increasing use of non-randomized designs for regulatory decision-making, the application of NCO methods will strengthen study design, analysis, and interpretation of real-world data and the credibility of the resulting real-world evidence.

Keywords: comparative effectiveness; comparative safety; healthcare databases; negative control; pharmacoepidemiology; residual confounding.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Ray WA. Evaluating medication effects outside of clinical trials: new-user designs. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;158(9):915-920.
    1. Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S, Rothman KJ, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Stürmer T. Variable selection for propensity score models. Am J Epidemiol. 2006 Jun;163(12):1149-1156.
    1. Lund JL, Richardson DB, Stürmer T. The active comparator, new user study design in pharmacoepidemiology: historical foundations and contemporary application. Curr Epidemiol Rep. 2015 Dec;2(4):221-228.
    1. Stürmer T, Wang T, Golightly YM, Keil A, Lund JL, Funk MJ. Methodological considerations when analysing and interpreting real-world data. Rheumatology. 2020;59(1):14-25.
    1. Shiba K, Kawahara T. Using propensity scores for causal inference: pitfalls and tips. J Epidemiol. 2021;31(8):457-463.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources