Confounding adjustment in observational studies on cardiothoracic interventions: a systematic review of methodological practice

Abstract

Objectives It is unknown which confounding adjustment methods are currently used in the field of cardiothoracic surgery and whether these are appropriately applied. The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the quality of conduct and reporting of confounding adjustment methods in observational studies on cardiothoracic interventions. Methods A systematic review was performed which included all observational studies that compared different interventions and were published between January 1 and July 1, 2022, in three European and American cardiothoracic surgery journals. Detailed information on confounding adjustment methods was extracted and subsequently described. Results Ninety-two articles were included in the analysis. Outcome regression (N = 49, 53%) and propensity score matching (N = 44, 48%) were most popular (sometimes used in combination), while 11 (12%) studies applied no method at all. The way of selecting confounders was not reported in 42 (46%) of the studies, solely based on previous literature or clinical knowledge in 14 (16%), and (partly) data-driven in 25 (27%). For the studies that applied propensity score matching, the matched cohorts comprised on average 46% of the entire study population (range 9% - 82%). Conclusions Current reporting of confounding adjustment methods is insufficient in a large part of observational studies on cardiothoracic interventions, which makes quality judgement difficult. Appropriate application of confounding adjustment methods is crucial for causal inference on optimal treatment strategies for clinical practice. Reporting on these methods is an important aspect of this, which can be improved.