Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Methodological evaluation of bias in observational coronavirus disease 2019 studies on drug effectiveness.
Martinuka, Oksana; von Cube, Maja; Wolkewitz, Martin.
  • Martinuka O; Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Centre, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
  • von Cube M; Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Centre, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
  • Wolkewitz M; Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Centre, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. Electronic address: wolke@imbi.uni-freiburg.de.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 27(7): 949-957, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1300714
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND

OBJECTIVE:

Observational studies may provide valuable evidence on real-world causal effects of drug effectiveness in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). As patients are usually observed from hospital admission to discharge and drug initiation starts during hospitalization, advanced statistical methods are needed to account for time-dependent drug exposure, confounding and competing events. Our objective is to evaluate the observational studies on the three common methodological pitfalls in time-to-event analyses immortal time bias, confounding bias and competing risk bias.

METHODS:

We performed a systematic literature search on 23 October 2020, in the PubMed database to identify observational cohort studies that evaluated drug effectiveness in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We included articles published in four journals British Medical Journal, New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association and The Lancet as well as their sub-journals.

RESULTS:

Overall, out of 255 articles screened, 11 observational cohort studies on treatment effectiveness with drug exposure-outcome associations were evaluated. All studies were susceptible to one or more types of bias in the primary study analysis. Eight studies had a time-dependent treatment. However, the hazard ratios were not adjusted for immortal time in the primary analysis. Even though confounders presented at baseline have been addressed in nine studies, time-varying confounding caused by time-varying treatment exposure and clinical variables was less recognized. Only one out of 11 studies addressed competing event bias by extending follow-up beyond patient discharge.

CONCLUSIONS:

In the observational cohort studies on drug effectiveness for treatment of COVID-19 published in four high-impact journals, the methodological biases were concerningly common. Appropriate statistical tools are essential to avoid misleading conclusions and to obtain a better understanding of potential treatment effects.
Subject(s)
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Bias / Observational Studies as Topic / COVID-19 Drug Treatment Type of study: Cohort study / Experimental Studies / Observational study / Prognostic study / Reviews / Systematic review/Meta Analysis Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: Clin Microbiol Infect Journal subject: Communicable Diseases / Microbiology Year: 2021 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: J.cmi.2021.03.003

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Bias / Observational Studies as Topic / COVID-19 Drug Treatment Type of study: Cohort study / Experimental Studies / Observational study / Prognostic study / Reviews / Systematic review/Meta Analysis Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: Clin Microbiol Infect Journal subject: Communicable Diseases / Microbiology Year: 2021 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: J.cmi.2021.03.003