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

Thomas Leahy, Seamus Kent, Cormac Sammon, Rolf Groenewold, Richard Grieve, Sreeram Ramagopalan*, Manuel Gomes

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

18 Citations (Scopus)
12 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)851-859
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
Volume11
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 9 Jun 2022
Externally publishedYes

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Authors.

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Unmeasured confounding in nonrandomized studies: quantitative bias analysis in health technology assessment'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this