Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
On variance estimation of the inverse probability-of-treatment weighting estimator: A tutorial for different types of propensity score weights.
Kostouraki, Andriana; Hajage, David; Rachet, Bernard; Williamson, Elizabeth J; Chauvet, Guillaume; Belot, Aurélien; Leyrat, Clémence.
Afiliação
  • Kostouraki A; Inequalities in Cancer Outcomes Network, Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
  • Hajage D; Département de Santé Publique, Centre de Pharmacoépidémiologie (Cephepi), CIC-1901, Sorbonne Université, Inserm, Institut Pierre-Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique, AP-HP, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France.
  • Rachet B; Inequalities in Cancer Outcomes Network, Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
  • Williamson EJ; Department of Medical Statistics, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
  • Chauvet G; ENSAI, CNRS, IRMAR-UMR 6625, Rennes University, Rennes, France.
  • Belot A; Inequalities in Cancer Outcomes Network, Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
  • Leyrat C; Department of Medical Statistics, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Stat Med ; 43(13): 2672-2694, 2024 Jun 15.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38622063
ABSTRACT
Propensity score methods, such as inverse probability-of-treatment weighting (IPTW), have been increasingly used for covariate balancing in both observational studies and randomized trials, allowing the control of both systematic and chance imbalances. Approaches using IPTW are based on two

steps:

(i) estimation of the individual propensity scores (PS), and (ii) estimation of the treatment effect by applying PS weights. Thus, a variance estimator that accounts for both steps is crucial for correct inference. Using a variance estimator which ignores the first step leads to overestimated variance when the estimand is the average treatment effect (ATE), and to under or overestimated estimates when targeting the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT). In this article, we emphasize the importance of using an IPTW variance estimator that correctly considers the uncertainty in PS estimation. We present a comprehensive tutorial to obtain unbiased variance estimates, by proposing and applying a unifying formula for different types of PS weights (ATE, ATT, matching and overlap weights). This can be derived either via the linearization approach or M-estimation. Extensive R code is provided along with the corresponding large-sample theory. We perform simulation studies to illustrate the behavior of the estimators under different treatment and outcome prevalences and demonstrate appropriate behavior of the analytical variance estimator. We also use a reproducible analysis of observational lung cancer data as an illustrative example, estimating the effect of receiving a PET-CT scan on the receipt of surgery.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Pontuação de Propensão Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Pontuação de Propensão Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article