Impacts of Initial Prescription Length and Prescribing Limits on Risk of Prolonged Postsurgical Opioid Use

Despite increased focus on reducing opioid prescribing for long-term pain, little is known regarding the incidence and risk factors for persistent opioid use after surgery.

We review three common methods to estimate predicted probabilities following confounder-adjusted logistic regression: marginal standardization (predicted probabilities summed to a weighted average reflecting the confounder distribution in the target population); prediction at the modes (conditional predicted probabilities calculated by setting each confounder to its modal value); and prediction at the means (predicted probabilities calculated by setting each confounder to its mean value). That each method corresponds to a different target population is underappreciated in practice. Specifically, prediction at the means is often incorrectly interpreted as estimating average probabilities for the overall study population, and furthermore yields nonsensical estimates in the presence of dichotomous confounders. Default commands in popular statistical software packages often lead to inadvertent misapplication of prediction at the means. Using an applied example, we demonstrate discrepancies in predicted probabilities across these methods, discuss implications for interpretation and provide syntax for SAS and Stata. Marginal standardization allows inference to the total population from which data are drawn. Prediction at the modes or means allows inference only to the relevant stratum of observations. With dichotomous confounders, prediction at the means corresponds to a stratum that does not include any real-life observations. Marginal standardization is the appropriate method when making inference to the overall population. Other methods should be used with caution, and prediction at the means should not be used with binary confounders. Stata, but not SAS, incorporates simple methods for marginal standardization. © The Author 2014; all rights reserved. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association.

The growing body of work in the epidemiology literature focused on G-computation includes theoretical explanations of the method but very few simulations or examples of application. The small number of G-computation analyses in the epidemiology literature relative to other causal inference approaches may be partially due to a lack of didactic explanations of the method targeted toward an epidemiology audience. The authors provide a step-by-step demonstration of G-computation that is intended to familiarize the reader with this procedure. The authors simulate a data set and then demonstrate both G-computation and traditional regression to draw connections and illustrate contrasts between their implementation and interpretation relative to the truth of the simulation protocol. A marginal structural model is used for effect estimation in the G-computation example. The authors conclude by answering a series of questions to emphasize the key characteristics of causal inference techniques and the G-computation procedure in particular.