Key result
Invalid statistical methods for handling medication use occur in ~28% of observational cardiovascular studies.
Why the study?
Measurements affected by medication are common in epidemiological research and require different handling depending on the research question, prompting a review of how medication use is handled in observational studies.
Systematic Review (n=127)
This review highlights a significant methodological gap in observational research, demonstrating that medication effects are frequently mishandled or ignored, which may lead to substantial bias in clinical findings.
Inadequate medication adjustment risks biased estimates in observational research; challenges validity of much published evidence and extends calls for standardized methods.
PURPOSE: In epidemiological research, measurements affected by medication, for example, blood pressure lowered by antihypertensives, are common. Different ways of handling medication are required depending on the research questions and whether the affected measurement is the exposure, the outcome, or a confounder. This study aimed to review handling of medication use in observational research. METHODS: PubMed was searched for etiological studies published between 2015 and 2019 in 15 high-ranked journals from cardiology, diabetes, and epidemiology. We selected studies that analyzed blood pressure, glucose, or lipid measurements (whether exposure, outcome or confounder) by linear or logistic regression. Two reviewers independently recorded how medication use was handled and assessed whether the methods used were in accordance with the research aim. We reported the methods used per variable category (exposure, outcome, confounder). RESULTS: A total of 127 articles were included. Most studies did not perform any method to account for medication use (exposure 58%, outcome 53%, and confounder 45%). Restriction (exposure 22%, outcome 23%, and confounders 10%), or adjusting for medication use using a binary indicator were also used frequently (exposure: 18%, outcome: 19%, confounder: 45%). No advanced methods were applied. In 60% of studies, the methods' validity could not be judged due to ambiguous reporting of the research aim. Invalid approaches were used in 28% of the studies, mostly when the affected variable was the outcome (36%). CONCLUSION: Many studies ambiguously stated the research aim and used invalid methods to handle medication use. Researchers should consider a valid methodological approach based on their research question.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Choi et al. (2022) conducted a systematic review in Observational research with measurements affected by medication use (n=127). Methodological approaches for handling medication use was evaluated on Use of invalid methodological approaches for handling medication use. Most studies did not adequately account for medication use, and invalid statistical approaches were used in 28% of the reviewed observational studies.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: