Literature DB >> 15981305

The reverse propensity score to detect selection bias and correct for baseline imbalances.

Vance W Berger1.   

Abstract

The propensity score has been proposed, and for the most part accepted, as a tool to allow for the evaluation of medical interventions in the presence of baseline imbalances arising in the context of observational studies. The lack of an analogous tool to allow for the evaluation of medical interventions in the presence of potentially systematic baseline imbalances in randomized trials has required the use of ad hoc methods. This, in turn, leads to challenges to the conclusions. For example, much of the controversy surrounding recommendations for or against mammography for some age groups stems from the fact that all the randomized trials to study mammography had baseline imbalances, to some extent, in important prognostic covariates. While some of these trials used cluster randomization, baseline imbalances are prevalent also in individually randomized trials. We provide a systematic approach for evaluating medical interventions in the presence of potentially systematic baseline imbalances in individually randomized trials with allocation concealment. Specifically, we define the reverse propensity score as the probability, conditional on all previous allocations and the allocation procedure (restrictions on the randomization), that a given patient will receive a given treatment. We demonstrate how the reverse propensity score allows for both detection of and correction for selection bias, or systematic baseline imbalances. Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15981305     DOI: 10.1002/sim.2141

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  13 in total

1.  Statistical properties of minimal sufficient balance and minimization as methods for controlling baseline covariate imbalance at the design stage of sequential clinical trials.

Authors:  Steven D Lauzon; Viswanathan Ramakrishnan; Paul J Nietert; Jody D Ciolino; Michael D Hill; Wenle Zhao
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2020-05-04       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  One-year outcomes of a drug abuse prevention program for older teens and emerging adults: evaluating a motivational interviewing booster component.

Authors:  Steve Sussman; Ping Sun; Louise A Rohrbach; Donna Spruijt-Metz
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2011-10-10       Impact factor: 4.267

3.  Post-traumatic growth, stressful life events, and relationships with substance use behaviors among alternative high school students: a prospective study.

Authors:  Thalida E Arpawong; Steve Sussman; Joel E Milam; Jennifer B Unger; Helen Land; Ping Sun; Louise A Rohrbach
Journal:  Psychol Health       Date:  2014-11-14

4.  Two-Year Effects of a Classroom-Based Smoking Prevention and Cessation Intervention Program.

Authors:  María Teresa Gonzálvez; José Pedro Espada; Mireia Orgilés; Steve Sussman
Journal:  Eur Addict Res       Date:  2017-06-09       Impact factor: 3.015

5.  Employing complier average causal effect analytic methods to examine effects of randomized encouragement trials.

Authors:  Arin M Connell
Journal:  Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 3.829

Review 6.  Recommendations for the Design and Analysis of Treatment Trials for Alcohol Use Disorders.

Authors:  Katie Witkiewitz; John W Finney; Alex H S Harris; Daniel R Kivlahan; Henry R Kranzler
Journal:  Alcohol Clin Exp Res       Date:  2015-08-06       Impact factor: 3.455

7.  Immediate and six-month effects of Project EX Russia: a smoking cessation intervention pilot program.

Authors:  Bulat Idrisov; Ping Sun; Leila Akhmadeeva; Thalida Em Arpawong; Polina Kukhareva; Steve Sussman
Journal:  Addict Behav       Date:  2013-04-02       Impact factor: 3.913

8.  One-Year Effects of Project EX in Spain: A Classroom-Based Smoking Prevention and Cessation Intervention Program.

Authors:  María T Gonzálvez; José P Espada; Mireia Orgilés; Daniel Soto; Steve Sussman
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-06-19       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Assessing the impact of selection bias on test decisions in trials with a time-to-event outcome.

Authors:  Marcia Viviane Rückbeil; Ralf-Dieter Hilgers; Nicole Heussen
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2017-04-17       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  Accuracy of the Berger-Exner test for detecting third-order selection bias in randomised controlled trials: a simulation-based investigation.

Authors:  Steffen Mickenautsch; Bo Fu; Sheila Gudehithlu; Vance W Berger
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2014-10-06       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.