The impact of moderator by confounder interactions in the assessment of treatment effect modification: a simulation study

5Citations
Citations of this article
12Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: When performed in an observational setting, treatment effect modification analyses should account for all confounding, where possible. Often, such studies only consider confounding between the exposure and outcome. However, there is scope for misspecification of the confounding adjustment when estimating moderation as the effects of the confounders may themselves be influenced by the moderator. The aim of this study was to investigate bias in estimates of treatment effect modification resulting from failure to account for an interaction between a binary moderator and a confounder on either treatment receipt or the outcome, and to assess the performance of different approaches to account for such interactions. Methods: The theory behind the reason for bias and factors that impact the magnitude of bias is explained. Monte Carlo simulations were used to assess the performance of different propensity scores adjustment methods and regression adjustment where the adjustment 1) did not account for any moderator-confounder interactions, 2) included moderator-confounder interactions, and 3) was estimated separately in each moderator subgroup. A real-world observational dataset was used to demonstrate this issue. Results: Regression adjustment and propensity score covariate adjustment were sensitive to the presence of moderator-confounder interactions on outcome, whilst propensity score weighting and matching were more sensitive to the presence of moderator-confounder interactions on treatment receipt. Including the relevant moderator-confounder interactions in the propensity score (for methods using this) or the outcome model (for regression adjustment) rectified this for all methods except propensity score covariate adjustment. For the latter, subgroup-specific propensity scores were required. Analysis of the real-world dataset showed that accounting for a moderator-confounder interaction can change the estimate of effect modification. Conclusions: When estimating treatment effect modification whilst adjusting for confounders, moderator-confounder interactions on outcome or treatment receipt should be accounted for.

References Powered by Scopus

An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies

8464Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group

4717Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Variable selection for propensity score models

1688Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

A Tutorial for Propensity Score Weighting for Moderation Analysis with Categorical Variables: An Application Examining Smoking Disparities among Sexual Minority Adults

2Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Heterosexist Discrimination and Substance Use in Young Adult Sexual Minority Men: Examining the Moderating Role of Mindfulness

0Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Impact of facial nerve resection in parotid cancer abutting the facial nerve without preoperative paralysis: A multicentric propensity score-based analysis

0Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Marsden, A. M., Dixon, W. G., Dunn, G., & Emsley, R. (2022). The impact of moderator by confounder interactions in the assessment of treatment effect modification: a simulation study. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01519-7

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

Lecturer / Post doc 2

40%

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 2

40%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

20%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 2

40%

Design 1

20%

Physics and Astronomy 1

20%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1

20%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free