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

Statistical Methods in Medical Research

Volumn 26, Issue 4, 2017, Pages 1654-1670

  Austin, Peter C ^a,b,c   Stuart, Elizabeth A ^d  

^a INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL EVALUATIVE SCIENCES   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^c Canada   (Canada)

^d JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

bias; full matching; inverse probability of treatment weighting; IPTW; Monte Carlo simulations; observational studies; Propensity score

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONFOUNDING VARIABLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; HAZARD RATIO; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INVERSE PROBABILITY OF TREATMENT WEIGHTING; MONTE CARLO METHOD; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PROBABILITY; PROPENSITY SCORE; SIMULATION; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; SURVIVAL RATE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; HUMAN; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; STATISTICAL BIAS;

BIAS; HUMANS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES AS TOPIC; PROPENSITY SCORE; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 85027684018     PISSN: 09622802     EISSN: 14770334     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0962280215584401     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Morgan SL, Winship C,. Counterfactuals and causal inference: methods and principles for social research, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
2. Imbens GW,. Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: a review. Rev Econom Stat 2004; 86: 4-29.
3. Austin PC,. A critical appraisal of propensity-score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003. Stat Med 2008; 27: 2037-2049.
4. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB,. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70: 41-55.
5. Rosenbaum PR,. Model-based direct adjustment. J Am Stat Assoc 1987; 82: 387-394.
6. Austin PC,. An introduction to propensity-score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behavio Res 2011; 46: 399-424.
7. Austin PC,. A report card on propensity-score matching in the cardiology literature from 2004 to 2006: A systematic review and suggestions for improvement. Circulation: Cardiovasc Qual Outcome 2008; 1: 62-67.
8. Austin PC,. Propensity-score matching in the cardiovascular surgery literature from 2004 to 2006: a systematic review and suggestions for improvement. J Thoracic Cardiovasc Surg 2007; 134: 1128-1135.
9. Gu XS, Rosenbaum PR,. Comparison of multivariate matching methods: structures, distances, and algorithms. J Computat Graphic Statist 1993; 2: 405-420.
10. Ming K, Rosenbaum PR,. Substantial gains in bias reduction from matching with a variable number of controls. Biometrics 2000; 56: 118-124.
11. Austin PC,. Statistical criteria for selecting the optimal number of untreated subjects matched to each treated subject when using many-to-one matching on the propensity score. Am J Epidemiol 2010; 172: 1092-1097.
12. Stuart EA,. Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statis Sci 2010; 25: 1-21.
13. Rosenbaum PR,. A characterization of optimal designs for observational studies. J Royal Stat Soc-Series B 1991; 53: 597-610.
14. Hansen BB,. Full matching in an observational study of coaching for the SAT. J Am Stat Assoc 2004; 99: 609-618.
15. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB,. Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Am Statistician 1985; 39: 33-38.
16. Austin PC, Manca A, Zwarenstein M, et al. A substantial and confusing variation exists in handling of baseline covariates in randomized controlled trials: a review of trials published in leading medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: 142-153.
17. Gayat E, Resche-Rigon M, Mary JY, et al. Propensity score applied to survival data analysis through proportional hazards models: a Monte Carlo study. Pharmaceut Stat 2012; 11: 222-229.
18. Austin PC, Grootendorst P, Normand SL, et al. Conditioning on the propensity score can result in biased estimation of common measures of treatment effect: a Monte Carlo study. Statist Med 2007; 26: 754-768.
19. Austin PC,. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal hazard ratios. Stat Med 2013; 32: 2837-2849.
20. Austin PC and Stuart EA. Optimal full matching for survival outcomes: A method that merits more widespread use. 2015 34: 3949-3967.
21. Ho DE, Imai K, King G, et al. Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political Analysis 2007; 15: 199-236.
22. Ho DE, Imai K, King G, et al. MatchIt: Nonparametric preprocessing for parametric causal inference. J Stat Software 2011; 42. http://imai.princeton.edu/research/files/matchit.pdf.
23. Szafara KL, Kruse RL, Mehr DR, et al. Mortality following nursing home-acquired lower respiratory infection: LRI severity, antibiotic treatment, and water intake. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2012; 13: 376-383.
24. Joffe MM, Ten Have TR, Feldman HI, et al. Model selection, confounder control, and marginal structural models: Review and new applications. Am Statist 2004; 58: 272-279.
25. Cole SR, Hernan MA,. Adjusted survival curves with inverse probability weights. Comput Meth Progr Biomed 2004; 75: 45-49.
26. Lin DY, Wei LJ,. The robust inference for the proportional hazards model. J Am Statist Assoc 1989; 84: 1074-1078.
27. Bender R, Augustin T, Blettner M,. Generating survival times to simulate Cox proportional hazards models. Stat Med 2005; 24: 1713-1723.
28. Austin PC, Small DS,. The use of bootstrapping when using propensity-score matching without replacement: A simulation study. Stat Med 2014; 33: 4306-4319.
29. Austin PC and Schuster T. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating absolute effects of treatments on survival outcomes: A simulation study. Stat Meth Med Res 2015 25: 2214-2237.
30. Austin PC,. A data-generation process for data with specified risk differences or numbers needed to treat. Commun Stat-Simul Computat 2010; 39: 563-577.
31. Austin PC, Stafford J,. The performance of two data-generation processes for data with specified marginal treatment odds ratios. Commun Stat-Simul Computat 2008; 37: 1039-1051.
32. Austin PC,. Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharmaceut Stat 2011; 10: 150-161.
33. Crump RK, Hotz VJ, Imbens GW, et al. Dealing with limited overlap in estimation of average treatment effects. Biometrika 2009; 96: 187-199.
34. Mamdani M, Sykora K, Li P, et al. Reader's guide to critical appraisal of cohort studies: 2. Assessing potential for confounding. British Med J 2005; 330: 960-962.
35. Lee BK, Lessler J, Stuart EA,. Improving propensity score weighting using machine learning. Stat Med 2010; 29: 337-346.
36. Setoguchi S, Schneeweiss S, Brookhart MA, et al. Evaluating uses of data mining techniques in propensity score estimation: a simulation study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Safe 2008; 17: 546-555.
37. Austin PC,. Using ensemble-based methods for directly estimating causal effects: An investigation of tree-based G-computation. Multivariate Behavior Res 2012; 47: 115-135.
38. Iacus SM, King G, Porro G,. Causal inference without balance checking: coarsened exact matching. Political Analysis 2012; 20: 1-24.
39. Kang J, Schafer J,. Demystifying double robustness: a comparison of alternative strategies for estimating a population mean from incomplete data. Stat Sci 2007; 22: 523-580.
40. Lee BK, Lessler J, Stuart EA,. Weight trimming and propensity score weighting. PLoS One 2011; 6: e18174-e18174.
41. McCaffrey DF, Ridgeway G, Morral AR,. Propensity score estimation with boosted regression for evaluating causal effects in observational studies. Psychological Meth 2004; 9: 403-425.