Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: When studying the effect of weight change between two time points on a health outcome using observational data, two main problems arise initially (i) 'when is time zero?' and (ii) 'which confounders should we account for?' From the baseline date or the 1st follow-up (when the weight change can be measured)? Different methods have been previously used in the literature that carry different sources of bias and hence produce different results. METHODS: We utilised the target trial emulation framework and considered weight change as a hypothetical intervention. First, we used a simplified example from a hypothetical randomised trial where no modelling is required. Then we simulated data from an observational study where modelling is needed. We demonstrate the problems of each of these methods and suggest a strategy. INTERVENTIONS: weight loss/gain vs maintenance. RESULTS: The recommended method defines time-zero at enrolment, but adjustment for confounders (or exclusion of individuals based on levels of confounders) should be performed both at enrolment and the 1st follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of our suggested method [adjusting for (or excluding based on) confounders measured both at baseline and the 1st follow-up] can help researchers attenuate bias by avoiding some common pitfalls. Other methods that have been widely used in the past to estimate the effect of weight change on a health outcome are more biased. However, two issues remain (i) the exposure is not well-defined as there are different ways of changing weight (however we tried to reduce this problem by excluding individuals who develop a chronic disease); and (ii) immortal time bias, which may be small if the time to first follow up is short.