Noncollapsibility and its role in quantifying confounding bias in logistic regression

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Gerben ter Riet¹  Judith J. M. Rijnhart²  Martijn W. Heymans²  Jos W. R. Twisk²  Noah A. Schuster² 

[1] Center of Expertise Urban Vitality, Faculty of Health, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC - Location AMC, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC - Location VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;

关键词: Logistic regression;    Confounding;    Noncollapsibility;    Confounder-adjustment;    Univariable regression analysis;    Multivariable regression analysis;    Inverse probability weighting;    Conditional effect;    Marginal effect;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12874-021-01316-8

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundConfounding bias is a common concern in epidemiological research. Its presence is often determined by comparing exposure effects between univariable- and multivariable regression models, using an arbitrary threshold of a 10% difference to indicate confounding bias. However, many clinical researchers are not aware that the use of this change-in-estimate criterion may lead to wrong conclusions when applied to logistic regression coefficients. This is due to a statistical phenomenon called noncollapsibility, which manifests itself in logistic regression models. This paper aims to clarify the role of noncollapsibility in logistic regression and to provide guidance in determining the presence of confounding bias.MethodsA Monte Carlo simulation study was designed to uncover patterns of confounding bias and noncollapsibility effects in logistic regression. An empirical data example was used to illustrate the inability of the change-in-estimate criterion to distinguish confounding bias from noncollapsibility effects.ResultsThe simulation study showed that, depending on the sign and magnitude of the confounding bias and the noncollapsibility effect, the difference between the effect estimates from univariable- and multivariable regression models may underestimate or overestimate the magnitude of the confounding bias. Because of the noncollapsibility effect, multivariable regression analysis and inverse probability weighting provided different but valid estimates of the confounder-adjusted exposure effect. In our data example, confounding bias was underestimated by the change in estimate due to the presence of a noncollapsibility effect.ConclusionIn logistic regression, the difference between the univariable- and multivariable effect estimate might not only reflect confounding bias but also a noncollapsibility effect. Ideally, the set of confounders is determined at the study design phase and based on subject matter knowledge. To quantify confounding bias, one could compare the unadjusted exposure effect estimate and the estimate from an inverse probability weighted model.

【 授权许可】

CC BY