RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Unmeasured confounding is often raised as a source of potential bias during the design of non-randomized studies but quantifying such concerns is challenging. METHODS: We developed a simulation-based approach to assess the potential impact of unmeasured confounding during the study design stage. The approach involved generation of hypothetical individual-level cohorts using realistic parameters including a binary treatment (prevalence 25%), a time-to-event outcome (incidence 5%), 13 measured covariates, a binary unmeasured confounder (u1, 10%), and a binary measured 'proxy' variable (p1) correlated with u1. Strength of unmeasured confounding and correlations between u1 and p1 were varied in simulation scenarios. Treatment effects were estimated with, a) no adjustment, b) adjustment for measured confounders (Level 1), c) adjustment for measured confounders and their proxy (Level 2). We computed absolute standardized mean differences in u1 and p1 and relative bias with each level of adjustment. RESULTS: Across all scenarios, Level 2 adjustment led to improvement in balance of u1, but this improvement was highly dependent on the correlation between u1 and p1. Level 2 adjustments also had lower relative bias than Level 1 adjustments (in strong u1 scenarios: relative bias of 9.2%, 12.2%, 13.5% at correlations 0.7, 0.5, and 0.3, respectively versus 16.4%, 15.8%, 15.0% for Level 1, respectively). CONCLUSION: An approach using simulated individual-level data was useful to explicitly convey the potential for bias due to unmeasured confounding while designing non-randomized studies and can be helpful in informing design choices.