Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 62, Issue 12 , Pages 1233-1241 , December 2009

Instrumental variables II: instrumental variable application—in 25 variations, the physician prescribing preference generally was strong and reduced covariate imbalance

  • Jeremy A. Rassen

      Affiliations

    • Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
    • Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
    • Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham & Women's Hospital, 1620, Tremont Street, Suite 3030, Boston, MA 02120, USA.
    • ,
  • M. Alan Brookhart

      Affiliations

    • Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
    • Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
    • ,
  • Robert J. Glynn

      Affiliations

    • Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
    • Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
    • Department of Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
    • ,
  • Murray A. Mittleman

      Affiliations

    • Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
    • Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
    • Cardiovascular Epidemiology Research Group, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
    • ,
  • Sebastian Schneeweiss

      Affiliations

    • Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
    • Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
    • Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

,Accepted 14 December 2008.

References 

  1. Schneeweiss S, Glynn RJ, Tsai EH, Avorn J, Solomon DH. Adjusting for unmeasured confounders in pharmacoepidemiologic claims data using external information: the example of COX2 inhibitors and myocardial infarction. Epidemiology. 2005;16:17–24
  2. Seeger JD, Williams PL, Walker AM. An application of propensity score matching using claims data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2005;14:465–476
  3. Sturmer T, Schneeweiss S, Avorn J, Glynn RJ. Adjusting effect estimates for unmeasured confounding with validation data using propensity score calibration. Am J Epidemiol. 2005;162:279–289
  4. Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S. “Mendelian randomization”: can genetic epidemiology contribute to understanding environmental determinants of disease?. Int J Epidemiol. 2003;32:1–22
  5. McClellan M, McNeil BJ, Newhouse JP. Does more intensive treatment of acute myocardial infarction in the elderly reduce mortality? Analysis using instrumental variables. JAMA. 1994;272:859–866
  6. Newhouse JP, McClellan M. Econometrics in outcomes research: the use of instrumental variables. Annu Rev Public Health. 1998;19:17–34
  7. Brookhart MA, Wang PS, Solomon DH, Schneeweiss S. Evaluating short-term drug effects using a physician-specific prescribing preference as an instrumental variable. Epidemiology. 2006;17:268–275
  8. Wang PS, Schneeweiss S, Avorn J, Fischer MA, Mogun H, Solomon DH, et al Risk of death in elderly users of conventional vs. atypical antipsychotic medications. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(22):2335–2341
  9. Angrist JD, Imbens G, Rubin DB. Identifcation of causal effects using instrumental variables. JASA. 1996;94:444–455
  10. Stukel TA, Fisher ES, Wennberg DE, Alter DA, Gottlieb DJ, Vermeulen MJ. Analysis of observational studies in the presence of treatment selection bias: effects of invasive cardiac management on AMI survival using propensity score and instrumental variable methods. JAMA. 2007;297:278–285
  11. Schneeweiss S, Avorn J. A review of uses of health care utilization databases for epidemiologic research on therapeutics. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:323–337
  12. Greene WH. Econometric analysis. 5th edition.. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2003;
  13. Hernán MA, Robins JM. Instruments for causal inference: an epidemiologist's dream?. Epidemiology. 2006;17:360–372
  14. Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S. Preference-based instrumental variable methods for the estimation of treatment effects: assessing validity and interpreting results. Int J Biost. 2007;3:article 14
  15. Bound J, Jaeger DA, Baker RM. Problems with instrumental variables estimation when the correlation between the instruments and the endogenous explanatory variable is weak. J Am Stat Assoc. 1995;90:443–450
  16. Murray MP. Avoiding invalid instruments and coping with weak instruments. J Econ Perspect. 2006;20:111–132
  17. Staiger D, Stock JH. Instrumental variable regression with weak instruments. Econometrica. 1997;65:557–586
  18. Stock JH, Yogo M. Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression. In:  Andrews DWK,  Stock JH editor. Identification and inference for econometric models: essays in honor of Thomas Rothenberg. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press; 2005;p. 80–108
  19. Brookhart MA, Rassen J, Wang PS, Dormuth CA, Mogun H, Schneeweiss S. Evaluating the validity of an instrumental variable study of neuroleptics: can between-physician differences in prescribing patterns be used to estimate treatment effects?. Med Care. 2007;45:S116–S122
  20. Wen SW, Kramer MS. Uses of ecologic studies in the assessment of intended treatment effects. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52:7–12
  21. Johnston SC. Combining ecological and individual variables to reduce confounding by indication: case study–subarachnoid hemorrhage treatment. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:1236–1241
  22. Schneeweiss S, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Solomon DH. A Medicare database review found that physician preferences increasingly outweighed patient characteristics as determinants of first-time prescriptions for COX-2 inhibitors. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:98–102
  23. Solomon DH, Schneeweiss S, Glynn RJ, Levin R, Avorn J. Determinants of selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor prescribing: are patient or physician characteristics more important?. Am J Med. 2003;115:715–720
  24. Schneeweiss S, Solomon DH, Wang PS, Rassen JA, Brookhart MA. Simultaneous assessment of short-term gastrointestinal benefits and cardiovascular risks of selective cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors and nonselective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs: an instrumental variable analysis. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54:3390–3398
  25. Salzman C. Clinical geriatric psychopharmacology. 4th edition.. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2005;
  26. Ray WA, Meredith S, Thapa PB, Meador KG, Hall K, Murray KT. Antipsychotics and the risk of sudden cardiac death. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001;58:1161–1167
  27. Schneeweiss S, Setoguchi S, Brookhart MA, Dormuth CA, Wang PS. Mortality in users of conventional and atypical antipsychotic medications in British Columbia seniors. Can Med Assoc J. 2007;126(5):627–632
  28. Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:613–619
  29. Romano PS, Roos LL, Jollis JG. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative data: differing perspectives. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46:1075–1079discussion 81–90
  30. Schneeweiss S, Maclure M. Use of comorbidity scores for control of confounding in studies using administrative databases. Int J Epidemiol. 2000;29:891–898
  31. Stata Version 9. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.
  32. Baum CF, Schaffer ME, Stillman S. ivreg2: Stata module to extended instrumental variables/2SLS, GMM and AC/HAC, LIML and k-class regression. In: Statistical software components. Boston College Department of Economics; 2006;
  33. Huber PJ. The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under non-standard conditions. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 1967;p. 221–233
  34. White H. Maximum likelihood estimation of misspecified models. Econometrica. 1982;50:1–26
  35. Cragg JG, Donald SG. Testing identifiability and specification in instrumental variable models. Econometric Theory. 1993;9:222–240
  36. Mahalanobis PC. On the generalized distance in statistics. Proc Natl Inst Sci India. 1936;12:49–55
  37. Stata procedure for calculating theMahalanobis distance. 2007. (Accessed January 28, 2008 Available at http://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/mark.lunt.)
  38. Inouye SK, Foreman MD, Mion LC, Katz KH, Cooney LM. Nurses' recognition of delirium and its symptoms: comparison of nurse and researcher ratings. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:2467–2473
  39. Wooldridge JM. Introductory econometrics: a modern approach. 3rd edition.. Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western; 2006;
  40. Greenland S. An introduction to instrumental variables for epidemiologists. Int J Epidemiol. 2000;29:722–729
  41. Harris KM, Remler DK. Who is the marginal patient? Understanding instrumental variables estimates of treatment effects. Health Serv Res. 1998;33:1337–1360

PII: S0895-4356(09)00013-4

doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.12.006

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 62, Issue 12 , Pages 1233-1241 , December 2009

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution