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
. 2024 Oct;33(10):e70026.
doi: 10.1002/pds.70026.

Core Concepts in Pharmacoepidemiology: Quantitative Bias Analysis

Affiliations
Review

Core Concepts in Pharmacoepidemiology: Quantitative Bias Analysis

Jeremy P Brown et al. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2024 Oct.

Abstract

Pharmacoepidemiological studies provide important information on the safety and effectiveness of medications, but the validity of study findings can be threatened by residual bias. Ideally, biases would be minimized through appropriate study design and statistical analysis methods. However, residual biases can remain, for example, due to unmeasured confounders, measurement error, or selection into the study. A group of sensitivity analysis methods, termed quantitative bias analyses, are available to assess, quantitatively and transparently, the robustness of study results to these residual biases. These approaches include methods to quantify how the estimated effect would be altered under specified assumptions about the potential bias, and methods to calculate bounds on effect estimates. This article introduces quantitative bias analyses for unmeasured confounding, misclassification, and selection bias, with a focus on their relevance and application to pharmacoepidemiological studies.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. R. Sendor and T. Stürmer, “Core Concepts in Pharmacoepidemiology: Confounding by Indication and the Role of Active Comparators,” Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 31, no. 3 (2022): 261–269, https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.5407.
    1. H. Lu, S. R. Cole, C. J. Howe, and D. Westreich, “Toward a Clearer Definition of Selection Bias When Estimating Causal Effects,” Epidemiology 33, no. 5 (2022): 699–706, https://doi.org/10.1097/ede.0000000000001516.
    1. R. J. Carroll, D. Ruppert, L. A. Stefanski, and C. M. Crainiceanu, Measurement Error in Nonlinear Models: A Modern Perspective (New York: Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2006).
    1. E. K. Acton, A. W. Willis, and S. Hennessy, “Core Concepts in Pharmacoepidemiology: Key Biases Arising in Pharmacoepidemiologic Studies,” Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 32, no. 1 (2022): 9–18, https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.5547.
    1. J. J. Yland, A. K. Wesselink, T. L. Lash, and M. P. Fox, “Misconceptions About the Direction of Bias From Nondifferential Misclassification,” American Journal of Epidemiology 191, no. 8 (2022): 1485–1495, https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwac035.

Publication types

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources