Influence of initial misdiagnosis on mortality in patients with bacteraemia: propensity score matching and propensity score weighting analyses.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic process is a key element of medicine but it is complex and prone to errors. Infectious diseases are one of the three categories of diseases in which diagnostic errors can be most harmful to patients. In this study we aimed to estimate the effect of initial misdiagnosis of the source of infection in patients with bacteraemia on 14 day mortality using propensity score methods to adjust for confounding. METHODS: Data from a previously described longitudinal cohort of patients diagnosed with monobacterial bloodstream infection (BSI) at the Leiden University Medical Centre (LUMC) between 2013 and 2015 were used. Propensity score matching and inversed probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were applied to correct for confounding. The average treatment effect on the treated (ATT), which in this study was the average effect of initial misdiagnosis on the misdiagnosed (AEMM), was estimated. Methodological issues that were encountered when applying propensity score methods were addressed by performing additional sensitivity analyses. Sensitivity analyses consisted of varying caliper in propensity score matching and using different truncated weights in inversed probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: Data of 887 patients were included in the study. Propensity scores ranged between 0.015 and 0.999 and 80 patients (9.9%) had a propensity score > 0.95. In the matched analyses, 35 of the 171 misdiagnosed patients died within 14 days (20.5%), versus 10 of the 171 correctly diagnosed patients (5.8%), yielding a difference of 14.6% (7.6%; 21.6%). In the total group of patients, the observed percentage of patients with an incorrect initial diagnosis that died within 14 days was 19.8% while propensity score reweighting estimated that their probability of dying would have been 6.5%, if they had been correctly diagnosed (difference 13.3% (95% CI 6.9%;19.6%)). After adjustment for all variables that showed disbalance in the propensity score a difference of 13.7% (7.4%; 19.9%) was estimated. Sensitivity analyses yielded similar results. However, performing weighted analyses without truncation yielded unstable results. CONCLUSION: Thus, we observed a substantial increase of 14 day mortality in initially misdiagnosed patients. Furthermore, several patients received propensity scores extremely close to one and were almost sure to be initially misdiagnosed.

Quality of Conduct and Reporting of Propensity Score Methods in Studies Investigating the Effectiveness of Antimicrobial Therapy.

Background: Propensity score methods are becoming increasingly popular in infectious disease medicine to correct for confounding in observational studies. However, applying and reporting propensity score techniques correctly requires substantial knowledge of these methods. The quality of conduct and reporting of propensity score methods in studies investigating the effectiveness of antimicrobial therapy is yet undetermined. Methods: A systematic review was performed to provide an overview of studies (2005-2020) on the effectiveness of antimicrobial therapy that used propensity score methods. A quality assessment tool and a standardized quality score were developed to evaluate a subset of studies in which antibacterial therapy was investigated in detail. The scale of this standardized score ranges between 0 (lowest quality) and 100 (excellent). Results: A total of 437 studies were included. The absolute number of studies that investigated the effectiveness of antimicrobial therapy and that used propensity score methods increased 15-fold between the periods 2005-2009 and 2015-2019. Propensity score matching was the most frequently applied technique (65%), followed by propensity score-adjusted multivariable regression (25%). A subset of 108 studies was evaluated in detail. The median standardized quality score per year ranged between 53 and 61 (overall range: 33-88) and remained constant over the years. Conclusions: The quality of conduct and reporting of propensity score methods in research on the effectiveness of antimicrobial therapy needs substantial improvement. The quality assessment instrument that was developed in this study may serve to help investigators improve the conduct and reporting of propensity score methods.