Differences in target estimands between different propensity score-based weights.

IPTW Monte Carlo simulations inverse probability of treatment weighting propensity score

Journal

Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety
ISSN: 1099-1557
Titre abrégé: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9208369

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
10 2023
Historique:
revised: 27 04 2023
received: 20 01 2023
accepted: 08 05 2023
medline: 6 9 2023
pubmed: 20 5 2023
entrez: 20 5 2023
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Propensity score weighting is a popular approach for estimating treatment effects using observational data. Different sets of propensity score-based weights have been proposed, including inverse probability of treatment weights whose target estimand is the average treatment effect, weights whose target estimand is the average treatment effect in the treated (ATT), and, more recently, matching weights, overlap weights, and entropy weights. These latter three sets of weights focus on estimating the effect of treatment in those subjects for whom there is clinical equipoise. We conducted a series of simulations to explore differences in the value of the target estimands for these five sets of weights when the difference in means is the measure of treatment effect. We considered 648 scenarios defined by different values of the prevalence of treatment, the c-statistic of the propensity score model, the correlation between the linear predictors for treatment selection and the outcome, and by the magnitude of the interaction between treatment status and the linear predictor for the outcome in the absence of treatment. We found that, when the prevalence of treatment was low or high and the c-statistic of the propensity score model was moderate to high, that matching weights, overlap weights, and entropy weights had target estimands that differed meaningfully from the target estimand of the ATE weights. Researchers using matching weights, overlap weights, and entropy weights should not assume that the estimated treatment effect is comparable to the ATE.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37208837
doi: 10.1002/pds.5639
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1103-1112

Informations de copyright

© 2023 The Author. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Références

Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70:41-55.
Rosenbaum PR. Model-based direct adjustment. J Am Stat Assoc. 1987;82:387-394.
Morgan SL, Winship C. Counterfactuals and Causal Inference: Methods and Principles for Social Research. Cambridge University Press; 2007.
Zhou Y, Matsouaka RA, Thomas L. Propensity score weighting under limited overlap and model misspecification. Stat Methods Med Res. 2020;29(12):3721-3756.
Li L, Greene T. A weighting analogue to pair matching in propensity score analysis. Int J Biostat. 2013;9(2):215-234.
Li F, Morgan KL, Zaslavsky AM. Balancing covariates via propensity score weighting. J Am Stat Assoc. 2018;113:390-400.
Li F, Thomas LE, Li F. Addressing extreme propensity scores via the overlap weights. Am J Epidemiol. 2019;188(1):250-257.
Dorn HF. Philosophy of inference from retrospective studies. Am J Public Health. 1953;43:692-699.
Hernan MA, Robins JM. Using big data to emulate a target trial when a randomized trial is not available. Am J Epidemiol. 2016;183(8):758-764.
Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med. 2009;28(25):3083-3107.
Austin PC, Stuart EA. Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Stat Med. 2015;34:3661-3679.
Franklin JM, Rassen JA, Ackermann D, Bartels DB, Schneeweiss S. Metrics for covariate balance in cohort studies of causal effects. Stat Med. 2014;33(10):1685-1699.
Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J. The Elements of Statistical Learning. 2nd ed. Springer; 2009.
Crump RK, Hotz VJ, Imbens GW, Mitnik OA. Dealing with limited overlap in estimation of average treatment effects. Biometrika. 2009;96(1):187-199.
Crump RK, Hotz VJ, Imbens GW, Mitnik OA. Moving the goalposts: addressing limited overlap in the estimation of average treatment effects by changing the estimand. 2006.
Kallus N, Santacatterina M. Optimal weighting for estimating generalized average treatment effects. J Causal Inference. 2022;10:123-140.
Luijken K, van Eekelen R, Gardarsdottir H, Groenwold RHH, van Geloven N. Tell me what you want, what you really really want: estimands in observational pharmacoepidemiologic comparative effectiveness and safety studies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2023. doi:10.1002/pds.5620

Auteurs

Peter C Austin (PC)

ICES, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH