Confounder-adjusted estimates of the risk difference using propensity score-based weighting

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 29, Issue 30, 2010, Pages 3126-3136

  Ukoumunne, Obioha C ^a,b   Williamson, Elizabeth ^a,b,c   Forbes, Andrew B ^c   Gulliford, Martin C ^d   Carlin, John B ^a,b  

^a MURDOCH CHILDREN'S RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^c MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^d KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Binomial regression; Generalized linear model; Propensity score based weighting; Risk difference

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAMPLE SIZE; SCORING SYSTEM; SIMULATION; SYSTEMATIC ERROR;

AGED; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMARY ARTERIES; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PROPENSITY SCORE; RISK;

EID: 78650229800     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.3935     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Cook RJ, Sackett DL. The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. BMJ 1995; 310:452-454.
2. McCullagh P, Nelder JA. Generalized Linear Models (2nd edn). Chapman & Hall/CRC: London, 1989.
3. Wacholder S. Binomial regression in GLM: estimating risk ratios and risk differences. American Journal of Epidemiology 1986; 123:174-184.
4. Stürmer T, Joshi M, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Rothman KJ, Schneeweiss S. A review of the application of propensity score methods yielded increasing use, advantages in specific settings, but not substantially different estimates compared with conventional multivariable methods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2006; 59:437-447. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.07.004.
5. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70:41-55.
6. Soledad Cepeda M, Boston R, Farrar JT, Strom BL. Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders. American Journal of Epidemiology 2003; 158:280-287. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwg115.
7. Vittinghoff E, McCulloch CE. Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and Cox regression. American Journal of Epidemiology 2006; 165:710-718. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwk052.
8. Kurth T, Walker AM, Glynn RJ, Chan KA, Gaziano JM, Berger K, Robins JM. Results of multivariable logistic regression, propensity matching, propensity adjustment, and propensity-based weighting under conditions of non-uniform effect. American Journal of Epidemiology 2006; 163:262-270. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwj047.
9. Hernán MA, Robins JM. Estimating causal effects from epidemiological data. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2006; 60:578-586. DOI: 10.1136/jech.2004.029496.
10. Cole SR, Hernán MA. Constructing inverse probability weights for marginal structural models. American Journal of Epidemiology 2008; 168:656-664. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwn164.
11. Lunceford JK, Davidian M. Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of causal treatment effects: a comparative study. Statistics in Medicine 2004; 23:2937-2960. DOI: 10.1002/sim.1903.
12. Robins JM, Hernán MA, Brumback B. Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology. Epidemiology 2000; 11:550-560.
13. Greenland S, Robins JM, Pearl J. Confounding and collapsibility in causal inference. Statistical Science 1999; 14:29-46. DOI: 10.1214/ss/1009211805.
14. Forbes A, Shortreed S. Inverse probability weighted estimation of the marginal odds ratio: correspondence regarding 'The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios' [letter]. Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27:5556-5559. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3362.
15. Austin PC, Stafford J. The performance of two data-generation processes for data with specified marginal treatment odds ratios. Communications in Statistics: Simulation and Computation 2008; 37:1039-1051. DOI: 10.1080/03610910801942430.
16. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 10.0. Stata Corporation: College Station, TX, 2007.
17. Silverman B. Density Estimation in Statistics and Data Analysis. Chapman and Hall/CRC Press: London, 1986.
18. Taggart DP. Bilateral internal mammary artery grafting Are BIMA better? Heart 2002; 88:7-9. DOI: 10.1136/heart.88.1.7.
19. Hill J. Discussion of research using propensity-score matching: comments on 'A critical appraisal of propensity-score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003' by Peter Austin, Statistics in Medicine [commentary]. Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27:2055-2061. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3245.
20. Localio AR, Margolis DJ, Berlin JA. Relative risks and confidence intervals were easily computed indirectly from multivariable logistic regression. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2007; 60:874-882. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.12.001.
21. Cheung YB. A modified least-squares regression approach to the estimation of risk difference. American Journal of Epidemiology 2007; 166:1337-1344. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwm223.
22. Zou G. A modified Poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. American Journal of Epidemiology 2004; 159:702-706. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwh090.
23. McNutt L-A, Wu C, Xue X, Hafner JP. Estimating the relative risk in cohort studies and clinical trials of common outcomes. American Journal of Epidemiology 2003; 157:940-943. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwg074.