Adjustment for multiple cardiovascular risk factors using a summary risk score

被引:50
作者
Arbogast, Patrick G. [1 ]
Kaltenbach, Lisa [1 ]
Ding, Hua [1 ]
Ray, Wayne A. [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Vanderbilt Univ, Dept Biostat, Nashville, TN 37232 USA
[2] Vanderbilt Univ, Dept Prevent Med, Nashville, TN 37232 USA
[3] Nashville Vet Adm Med Ctr, Ctr Geriatr Res Educ & Clin, Nashville, TN USA
关键词
D O I
10.1097/EDE.0b013e31815be000
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Background: To simultaneously adjust for confounding by multiple cardiovascular risk factors, recently published pharmacoepidemiologic studies have used an index of risk of cardiovascular disease (a cardiovascular risk score). This summary measure is a multivariate confounder score created from regression models relating these risk factors to the outcome. The score is then used in regression models to adjust for potential confounding of the exposure of interest. Although this summary score has a number of advantages, there is concern that it may result in underestimation of the standard error of the exposure estimate and thus inflate the number of statistically significant results. Methods: We conducted simulation studies comparing regression models adjusting for all risk factors directly to models using this summary risk score for large cohort studies. Results: Results indicated that, as long as there was not a high degree of intercorrelation between the potential confounders and the exposure, estimated standard errors from the regression models using this summary risk score approximate their empirical standard errors well and are similar to the standard errors from the regression models directly adjusting for all risk factors. Conclusions: Based on these simulation results, using this summary risk score can be a reasonable approach for summarizing many risk factors in large cohort studies.
引用
收藏
页码:30 / 37
页数:8
相关论文
共 20 条
[1]   BOOTSTRAP INVESTIGATION OF THE STABILITY OF A COX REGRESSION-MODEL [J].
ALTMAN, DG ;
ANDERSEN, PK .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 1989, 8 (07) :771-783
[2]   Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders [J].
Cepeda, MS ;
Boston, R ;
Farrar, JT ;
Strom, BL .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2003, 158 (03) :280-287
[3]  
COOK EF, 1989, J CLIN EPIDEMIOL, V42, P317
[4]   Risk of acute myocardial infarction and sudden cardiac death in patients treated with cyclo-oxygenase 2 selective and non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: nested case-control study [J].
Graham, DJ ;
Campen, D ;
Hui, R ;
Spence, M ;
Cheetham, C ;
Levy, G ;
Shoor, S ;
Graham, D .
LANCET, 2005, 365 (9458) :475-481
[5]  
HARRELL FE, 1985, CANCER TREAT REP, V69, P1071
[6]   Methods to assess intended effects of drug treatment in observational studies are reviewed [J].
Klungel, OH ;
Martens, EP ;
Psaty, BM ;
Grobbee, DE ;
Sullivan, SD ;
Stricker, BHC ;
Leufkens, HGM ;
de Boer, A .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2004, 57 (12) :1223-1231
[7]   Approaches to combat with confounding by indication in observational studies of intended drug effects [J].
McMahon, AD .
PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, 2003, 12 (07) :551-558
[8]   STRATIFICATION BY A MULTIVARIATE CONFOUNDER SCORE [J].
MIETTINEN, OS .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1976, 104 (06) :609-620
[9]   A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis [J].
Peduzzi, P ;
Concato, J ;
Kemper, E ;
Holford, TR ;
Feinstein, AR .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1996, 49 (12) :1373-1379
[10]  
Pike M C, 1979, J Epidemiol Community Health, V33, P104, DOI 10.1136/jech.33.1.104