Unmeasured confounding in nonrandomized studies: quantitative bias analysis in health technology assessment.

Thomas P Leahy; Seamus Kent; Cormac Sammon; Rolf Hh Groenwold; Richard Grieve ORCID logo; Sreeram Ramagopalan; Manuel Gomes; (2022) Unmeasured confounding in nonrandomized studies: quantitative bias analysis in health technology assessment. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, 11 (12). pp. 851-859. ISSN 2042-6305 DOI: 10.2217/cer-2022-0029
Copy

Evidence generated from nonrandomized studies (NRS) is increasingly submitted to health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. Unmeasured confounding is a primary concern with this type of evidence, as it may result in biased treatment effect estimates, which has led to much criticism of NRS by HTA agencies. Quantitative bias analyses are a group of methods that have been developed in the epidemiological literature to quantify the impact of unmeasured confounding and adjust effect estimates from NRS. Key considerations for application in HTA proposed in this article reflect the need to balance methodological complexity with ease of application and interpretation, and the need to ensure the methods fit within the existing frameworks used to assess nonrandomized evidence by HTA bodies.


picture_as_pdf
Leahy_etal_2022_Unmeasured-confounding-in-nonrandomized-studies.pdf
subject
Published Version
Available under Creative Commons: 4.0

View Download

Atom BibTeX OpenURL ContextObject in Span Multiline CSV OpenURL ContextObject Dublin Core Dublin Core MPEG-21 DIDL EndNote HTML Citation JSON MARC (ASCII) MARC (ISO 2709) METS MODS RDF+N3 RDF+N-Triples RDF+XML RIOXX2 XML Reference Manager Refer Simple Metadata ASCII Citation EP3 XML
Export

Downloads