Propensity Score Weighting and Trimming Strategies for Reducing Variance and Bias of Treatment Effect Estimates: A Simulation Study.
bias (epidemiology)
epidemiologic methods
propensity score
simulation study
trimming
unmeasured confounding
variance
weighting
Journal
American journal of epidemiology
ISSN: 1476-6256
Titre abrégé: Am J Epidemiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7910653
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 08 2021
01 08 2021
Historique:
received:
06
07
2020
revised:
05
02
2021
accepted:
15
02
2021
pubmed:
23
2
2021
medline:
26
8
2021
entrez:
22
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To extend previous simulations on the performance of propensity score (PS) weighting and trimming methods to settings without and with unmeasured confounding, Poisson outcomes, and various strengths of treatment prediction (PS c statistic), we simulated studies with a binary intended treatment T as a function of 4 measured covariates. We mimicked treatment withheld and last-resort treatment by adding 2 "unmeasured" dichotomous factors that directed treatment to change for some patients in both tails of the PS distribution. The number of outcomes Y was simulated as a Poisson function of T and confounders. We estimated the PS as a function of measured covariates and trimmed the tails of the PS distribution using 3 strategies ("Crump," "Stürmer," and "Walker"). After trimming and reestimation, we used alternative PS weights to estimate the treatment effect (rate ratio): inverse probability of treatment weighting, standardized mortality ratio (SMR)-treated, SMR-untreated, the average treatment effect in the overlap population (ATO), matching, and entropy. With no unmeasured confounding, the ATO (123%) and "Crump" trimming (112%) improved relative efficiency compared with untrimmed inverse probability of treatment weighting. With unmeasured confounding, untrimmed estimates were biased irrespective of weighting method, and only Stürmer and Walker trimming consistently reduced bias. In settings where unmeasured confounding (e.g., frailty) may lead physicians to withhold treatment, Stürmer and Walker trimming should be considered before primary analysis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33615349
pii: 6146006
doi: 10.1093/aje/kwab041
pmc: PMC8327194
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1659-1670Subventions
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : R01 AG056479
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Références
Am J Epidemiol. 2009 Apr 1;169(7):909-17
pubmed: 19153216
Am J Epidemiol. 2019 Feb 1;188(2):438-443
pubmed: 30299451
Am J Epidemiol. 2006 Feb 1;163(3):262-70
pubmed: 16371515
Am J Epidemiol. 2021 Jan 4;190(1):189-190
pubmed: 33155637
Am J Epidemiol. 2019 Jul 1;188(7):1371-1382
pubmed: 30927359
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2019 Oct;28(10):1290-1298
pubmed: 31385394
Epidemiology. 2018 Jul;29(4):556-561
pubmed: 29621057
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2006 Oct;15(10):698-709
pubmed: 16528796
Am J Epidemiol. 2019 Jan 1;188(1):250-257
pubmed: 30189042
Am J Epidemiol. 2010 Oct 1;172(7):843-54
pubmed: 20716704
Stat Methods Med Res. 2019 Jun;28(6):1741-1760
pubmed: 29991330
Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2006 Mar;98(3):253-9
pubmed: 16611199
J Intern Med. 2014 Jun;275(6):570-80
pubmed: 24520806
Int J Biostat. 2013 Jul 31;9(2):215-34
pubmed: 23902694
Epidemiology. 2017 May;28(3):387-395
pubmed: 28151746
Stat Methods Med Res. 2020 Dec;29(12):3721-3756
pubmed: 32693715