62
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The performance of inverse probability of treatment weighting and full matching on the propensity score in the presence of model misspecification when estimating the effect of treatment on survival outcomes

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          There is increasing interest in estimating the causal effects of treatments using observational data. Propensity-score matching methods are frequently used to adjust for differences in observed characteristics between treated and control individuals in observational studies. Survival or time-to-event outcomes occur frequently in the medical literature, but the use of propensity score methods in survival analysis has not been thoroughly investigated. This paper compares two approaches for estimating the Average Treatment Effect (ATE) on survival outcomes: Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (IPTW) and full matching. The performance of these methods was compared in an extensive set of simulations that varied the extent of confounding and the amount of misspecification of the propensity score model. We found that both IPTW and full matching resulted in estimation of marginal hazard ratios with negligible bias when the ATE was the target estimand and the treatment-selection process was weak to moderate. However, when the treatment-selection process was strong, both methods resulted in biased estimation of the true marginal hazard ratio, even when the propensity score model was correctly specified. When the propensity score model was correctly specified, bias tended to be lower for full matching than for IPTW. The reasons for these biases and for the differences between the two methods appeared to be due to some extreme weights generated for each method. Both methods tended to produce more extreme weights as the magnitude of the effects of covariates on treatment selection increased. Furthermore, more extreme weights were observed for IPTW than for full matching. However, the poorer performance of both methods in the presence of a strong treatment-selection process was mitigated by the use of IPTW with restriction and full matching with a caliper restriction when the propensity score model was correctly specified.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          MatchIt: Nonparametric Preprocessing for Parametric Causal Inference

            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies

            In a study comparing the effects of two treatments, the propensity score is the probability of assignment to one treatment conditional on a subject's measured baseline covariates. Propensity-score matching is increasingly being used to estimate the effects of exposures using observational data. In the most common implementation of propensity-score matching, pairs of treated and untreated subjects are formed whose propensity scores differ by at most a pre-specified amount (the caliper width). There has been a little research into the optimal caliper width. We conducted an extensive series of Monte Carlo simulations to determine the optimal caliper width for estimating differences in means (for continuous outcomes) and risk differences (for binary outcomes). When estimating differences in means or risk differences, we recommend that researchers match on the logit of the propensity score using calipers of width equal to 0.2 of the standard deviation of the logit of the propensity score. When at least some of the covariates were continuous, then either this value, or one close to it, minimized the mean square error of the resultant estimated treatment effect. It also eliminated at least 98% of the bias in the crude estimator, and it resulted in confidence intervals with approximately the correct coverage rates. Furthermore, the empirical type I error rate was approximately correct. When all of the covariates were binary, then the choice of caliper width had a much smaller impact on the performance of estimation of risk differences and differences in means. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Nonparametric Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Under Exogeneity: A Review

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Stat Methods Med Res
                Stat Methods Med Res
                SMM
                spsmm
                Statistical Methods in Medical Research
                SAGE Publications (Sage UK: London, England )
                0962-2802
                1477-0334
                30 April 2015
                August 2017
                : 26
                : 4 , Special issue: Optimal Dynamic Treat Regimes
                : 1654-1670
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [2 ]Institute of Health Management, Policy and Evaluation, University of Toronto
                [3 ]Schulich Heart Research Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Canada
                [4 ]Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
                [5 ]Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
                [6 ]Department of Health, Policy, and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
                Author notes
                [*]Peter C Austin, Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, G106, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M4N 3M5, Canada. Email: peter.austin@ 123456ices.on.ca
                Article
                10.1177_0962280215584401
                10.1177/0962280215584401
                5564952
                25934643
                4e0982a2-1ec0-4403-83a2-d586fe8b6537
                © The Author(s) 2015

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 License ( http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                Categories
                Regular Articles

                propensity score,full matching,inverse probability of treatment weighting,monte carlo simulations,observational studies,bias,iptw

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log