» Articles » PMID: 27668265

A General Framework for Considering Selection Bias in EHR-Based Studies: What Data Are Observed and Why?

Overview
Journal EGEMS (Wash DC)
Publisher Ubiquity Press
Date 2016 Sep 27
PMID 27668265
Citations 62
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

A common longitudinal intensive care unit data format (CLIF) for critical illness research.

Rojas J, Lyons P, Chhikara K, Chaudhari V, Bhavani S, Nour M Intensive Care Med. 2025; .

PMID: 40080116 DOI: 10.1007/s00134-025-07848-7.


Real World Data Versus Probability Surveys for Estimating Health Conditions at the State Level.

Marker D, Hilton C, Zelko J, Duke J, Rolka D, Kaufmann R J Surv Stat Methodol. 2025; 12(5):1515-1530.

PMID: 39781537 PMC: 11708384. DOI: 10.1093/jssam/smae036.


Double Sampling for Informatively Missing Data in Electronic Health Record-Based Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Levis A, Mukherjee R, Wang R, Fischer H, Haneuse S Stat Med. 2024; 43(30):6086-6098.

PMID: 39638313 PMC: 11639654. DOI: 10.1002/sim.10298.


Reducing Information and Selection Bias in EHR-Linked Biobanks via Genetics-Informed Multiple Imputation and Sample Weighting.

Salvatore M, Kundu R, Du J, Friese C, Mondul A, Hanauer D medRxiv. 2024; .

PMID: 39574876 PMC: 11581092. DOI: 10.1101/2024.10.28.24316286.


Applying Implementation Science to Advance Electronic Health Record-Driven Learning Health Systems: Case Studies, Challenges, and Recommendations.

Trinkley K, Maw A, Huebner Torres C, Huebschmann A, Glasgow R J Med Internet Res. 2024; 26:e55472.

PMID: 39374069 PMC: 11494259. DOI: 10.2196/55472.


References
1.
Toh S, Garcia Rodriguez L, Hernan M . Confounding adjustment via a semi-automated high-dimensional propensity score algorithm: an application to electronic medical records. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011; 20(8):849-57. PMC: 3222935. DOI: 10.1002/pds.2152. View

2.
Li X, Shen C . Linkage of patient records from disparate sources. Stat Methods Med Res. 2011; 22(1):31-8. DOI: 10.1177/0962280211403600. View

3.
Seaman S, White I, Copas A, Li L . Combining multiple imputation and inverse-probability weighting. Biometrics. 2011; 68(1):129-37. PMC: 3412287. DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2011.01666.x. View

4.
Serretti A, Mandelli L . Antidepressants and body weight: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis. J Clin Psychiatry. 2010; 71(10):1259-72. DOI: 10.4088/JCP.09r05346blu. View

5.
Gallego B, Dunn A, Coiera E . Role of electronic health records in comparative effectiveness research. J Comp Eff Res. 2013; 2(6):529-32. DOI: 10.2217/cer.13.65. View