Illustrating potential effects of alternate control populations on real-world evidence-based statistical analyses

Case-control study designs are commonly used in retrospective analyses of real-world evidence (RWE). Due to the increasingly wide availability of RWE, it can be difficult to determine whether findings are robust or the result of testing multiple hypotheses. We investigate the potential effects of mo...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:JAMIA open 2021-04, Vol.4 (2), p.ooab045-ooab045
Main Authors: Huang, Yidi, Yuan, William, Kohane, Isaac S, Beaulieu-Jones, Brett K
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Analysis
Decision-making
Dextrose
Diabetes therapy
Glucose
Glycosylated hemoglobin
Research and Applications
Type 2 diabetes
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Case-control study designs are commonly used in retrospective analyses of real-world evidence (RWE). Due to the increasingly wide availability of RWE, it can be difficult to determine whether findings are robust or the result of testing multiple hypotheses. We investigate the potential effects of modifying cohort definitions in a case-control association study between depression and type 2 diabetes mellitus. We used a large (>75 million individuals) de-identified administrative claims database to observe the effects of minor changes to the requirements of glucose and hemoglobin A1c tests in the control group. We found that small permutations to the criteria used to define the control population result in significant shifts in both the demographic structure of the identified cohort as well as the odds ratio of association. These differences remain present when testing against age- and sex-matched controls. Analyses of RWE need to be carefully designed to avoid issues of multiple testing. Minor changes to control cohorts can lead to significantly different results and have the potential to alter even prospective studies through selection bias. We believe this work offers strong support for the need for robust guidelines, best practices, and regulations around the use of observational RWE for clinical or regulatory decision-making.
ISSN:2574-2531
2574-2531
DOI:10.1093/jamiaopen/ooab045