A General Framework for Considering Selection Bias in EHR-Based Studies: What Data Are Observed and Why?
Electronic health records (EHR) data are increasingly seen as a resource for cost-effective comparative effectiveness research (CER). Since EHR data are collected primarily for clinical and/or billing purposes, their use for CER requires consideration of numerous methodologic challenges including the potential for confounding bias, due to a lack of randomization, and for selection bias, due to missing data. In contrast to the recent literature on confounding bias in EHR-based CER, virtually no attention has been paid to selection bias possibly due to the belief that standard methods for missing data can be readily-applied. Such methods, however, hinge on an overly simplistic view of the available/missing EHR data, so that their application in the EHR setting will often fail to completely control selection bias. Motivated by challenges we face in an on-going EHR-based comparative effectiveness study of choice of antidepressant treatment and long-term weight change, we propose a new general framework for selection bias in EHR-based CER. Crucially, the framework provides structure within which researchers can consider the complex interplay between numerous decisions, made by patients and health care providers, which give rise to health-related information being recorded in the EHR system, as well as the wide variability across EHR systems themselves. This, in turn, provides structure within which: (i) the transparency of assumptions regarding missing data can be enhanced, (ii) factors relevant to each decision can be elicited, and (iii) statistical methods can be better aligned with the complexity of the data.
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
Sebastien
S
Haneuse
University of Texas-Austin.
Michael
M
Daniels
2014 Group Health Seattle Symposium; Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER); Electronic Health Record (EHR); Methods; Missing Data; Selection Bias
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011 Aug;20(8):849-57
21717528
Stat Methods Med Res. 2013 Feb;22(1):31-8
21665896
Biometrics. 2012 Mar;68(1):129-37
22050039
J Clin Psychiatry. 2010 Oct;71(10):1259-72
21062615
J Comp Eff Res. 2013 Nov;2(6):529-32
24236790
Med Care. 2013 Aug;51(8 Suppl 3):S30-7
23774517
Cleve Clin J Med. 2003 Jul;70(7):614, 616, 618, passim
12882383
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Sep 1;151(5):359-60
19638404
PLoS Comput Biol. 2012;8(12):e1002823
23300414
J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Jul;60(7):648-50
17573976
Epidemiology. 2006 May;17(3):268-75
16617275
Stat Methods Med Res. 2013 Feb;22(1):70-96
22016461
EGEMS (Wash DC). 2013 Dec 17;1(3):1035
25848578
Med Care. 2013 Aug;51(8 Suppl 3):S80-6
23774512
Biometrics. 2012 Sep;68(3):661-71
22364439
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2010 Jun;19(6):537-54
20354968
Epidemiology. 2008 Nov;19(6):766-79
18854702
BMJ. 2009 Jun 29;338:b2393
19564179
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013 Jan 1;20(1):144-51
22733976
Obes Rev. 2004 May;5(2):115-21
15086865
JAMA Psychiatry. 2014 Aug;71(8):889-96
24898363
Stat Methods Med Res. 2013 Feb;22(1):7-13
21828172
Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2011 Dec;34(4):747-64
22098801
Stat Med. 1997 Feb 28;16(4):385-95
9044528
Epidemiology. 2009 Jul;20(4):512-22
19487948
Value Health. 2009 Nov-Dec;12(8):1062-73
19793071
Biometrics. 2013 Mar;69(1):263-73
23379793
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2006 May;15(5):291-303
16447304
Am J Epidemiol. 2005 Aug 1;162(3):279-89
15987725
Epidemiology. 2004 Sep;15(5):615-25
15308962
Am J Epidemiol. 2007 May 15;165(10):1110-8
17395595
J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Apr;58(4):323-37
15862718
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2010 Nov-Dec;17(6):646-51
20962126