Comparing the performance of two-stage residual inclusion methods when using physician's prescribing preference as an instrumental variable: unmeasured confounding and noncollapsibility.

Aim: The first objective is to compare the performance of two-stage residual inclusion (2SRI), two-stage least square (2SLS) with the multivariable generalized linear model (GLM) in terms of the reducing unmeasured confounding bias. The second objective is to demonstrate the ability of 2SRI and 2SPS in alleviating unmeasured confounding when noncollapsibility exists. Materials & methods: This study comprises a simulation study and an empirical example from a real-world UK population health dataset (Clinical Practice Research Datalink). The instrumental variable (IV) used is based on physicians' prescribing preferences (defined by prescribing history). Results: The percent bias of 2SRI in terms of treatment effect estimates to be lower than GLM and 2SPS and was less than 15% in most scenarios. Further, 2SRI was found to be robust to mild noncollapsibility with the percent bias less than 50%. As the level of unmeasured confounding increased, the ability to alleviate the noncollapsibility decreased. Strong IVs tended to be more robust to noncollapsibility than weak IVs. Conclusion: 2SRI tends to be less biased than GLM and 2SPS in terms of estimating treatment effect. It can be robust to noncollapsibility in the case of the mild unmeasured confounding effect.

Assessing the performance of physician's prescribing preference as an instrumental variable in comparative effectiveness research with moderate and small sample sizes: a simulation study.

Aim: This simulation study is to assess the utility of physician's prescribing preference (PPP) as an instrumental variable for moderate and smaller sample sizes. Materials & methods: We designed a simulation study to imitate a comparative effectiveness research under different sample sizes. We compare the performance of instrumental variable (IV) and non-IV approaches using two-stage least squares (2SLS) and ordinary least squares (OLS) methods, respectively. Further, we test the performance of different forms of proxies for PPP as an IV. Results: The percent bias of 2SLS is around approximately 20%, while the percent bias of OLS is close to 60%. The sample size is not associated with the level of bias for the PPP IV approach. Conclusion: Irrespective of sample size, the PPP IV approach leads to less biased estimates of treatment effectiveness than OLS adjusting for known confounding only. Particularly for smaller sample sizes, we recommend constructing PPP from long prescribing histories to improve statistical power.