Background: Instrumental variable (IV) analysis holds the potential to estimate treatment effects from observational data. IV analysis potentially circumvents unmeasured confounding but makes a... Show moreBackground: Instrumental variable (IV) analysis holds the potential to estimate treatment effects from observational data. IV analysis potentially circumvents unmeasured confounding but makes a number of assumptions, such as that the IV shares no common cause with the outcome. When using treatment preference as an instrument, a common cause, such as a preference regarding related treatments, may exist. We aimed to explore the validity and precision of a variant of IV analysis where we additionally adjust for the provider: adjusted IV analysis. Methods: A treatment effect on an ordinal outcome was simulated (beta - 0.5 in logistic regression) for 15.000 patients, based on a large data set (the IMPACT data, n = 8799) using different scenarios including measured and unmeasured confounders, and a common cause of IV and outcome. We compared estimated treatment effects with patient-level adjustment for confounders, IV with treatment preference as the instrument, and adjusted IV, with hospital added as a fixed effect in the regression models. Results: The use of patient-level adjustment resulted in biased estimates for all the analyses that included unmeasured confounders, IV analysis was less confounded, but also less reliable. With correlation between treatment preference and hospital characteristics (a common cause) estimates were skewed for regular IV analysis, but not for adjusted IV analysis. Conclusion: When using IV analysis for comparing hospitals, some limitations of regular IV analysis can be overcome by adjusting for a common cause. Show less
Background: There is a growing interest in assessment of the quality of hospital care, based on outcome measures. Many quality of care comparisons rely on binary outcomes, for example mortality... Show moreBackground: There is a growing interest in assessment of the quality of hospital care, based on outcome measures. Many quality of care comparisons rely on binary outcomes, for example mortality rates. Due to low numbers, the observed differences in outcome are partly subject to chance. We aimed to quantify the gain in efficiency by ordinal instead of binary outcome analyses for hospital comparisons. We analyzed patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and stroke as examples.Methods: We sampled patients from two trials. We simulated ordinal and dichotomous outcomes based on the modified Rankin Scale (stroke) and Glasgow Outcome Scale (TBI) in scenarios with and without true differences between hospitals in outcome. The potential efficiency gain of ordinal outcomes, analyzed with ordinal logistic regression, compared to dichotomous outcomes, analyzed with binary logistic regression was expressed as the possible reduction in sample size while keeping the same statistical power to detect outliers.Results: In the IMPACT study (9578 patients in 265 hospitals, mean number of patients per hospital = 36), the analysis of the ordinal scale rather than the dichotomized scale ('unfavorable outcome'), allowed for up to 32% less patients in the analysis without a loss of power. In the PRACTISE trial (1657 patients in 12 hospitals, mean number of patients per hospital = 138), ordinal analysis allowed for 13% less patients. Compared to mortality, ordinal outcome analyses allowed for up to 37 to 63% less patients.Conclusions: Ordinal analyses provide the statistical power of substantially larger studies which have been analyzed with dichotomization of endpoints. We advise to exploit ordinal outcome measures for hospital comparisons, in order to increase efficiency in quality of care measurements. Show less
