Literature DB >> 19446162

Interpreting treatment-effect estimates with heterogeneity and choice: simulation model results.

John M Brooks1, Gang Fang.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Researchers using observational data in health-services research use various treatment-effect estimators to reduce the bias associated with unmeasured confounding variables and have focused on estimate differences to indicate the relative ability of these estimators to mitigate bias. However, available estimators may identify different treatment-effect concepts; if treatment effects are heterogeneous across patients and treatment choice reflects "sorting on the gain," then treatment-effect estimates should differ regardless of confounding. Risk-adjustment approaches yield estimates of the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT), whereas instrumental variable approaches yield estimates of a local average treatment effect (LATE).
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this article was to use simulation methods to illustrate the treatment-effect concepts that are identified using observational data with various estimators.
METHODS: We simulated patient treatment choices based on expected treatment valuation to observe estimates of both ATT and LATE. Different model scenarios were run to isolate the effects of both treatment-effect heterogeneity and unmeasured confounding on treatment-effect concept estimation. Models were estimated using standard linear and nonlinear estimation methods.
RESULTS: We show that the true values of the underlying treatment concepts differ if patients (with the help of their health care providers) make treatment choices based on expected gains, and that distinct estimators produce estimates of distinct concepts. In scenarios without unmeasured confounding, both linear and nonlinear estimation models produced estimates close to the true value of the concept identified by each estimator. However, nonlinear models suggested additional treatment-effect heterogeneity that does not exist in these scenarios.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that, to ensure clarity and correctness of treatment-effect estimate interpretation, it is important for researchers to state the treatment-effect concept that they are trying to identify before beginning estimation. In addition, theoretical models of treatment choice are needed to provide the foundation linking treatment-effect estimates to treatment-effect concepts and to justify instrument selection.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19446162     DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2009.04.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Ther        ISSN: 0149-2918            Impact factor:   3.393


  11 in total

1.  Applying machine learning to predict real-world individual treatment effects: insights from a virtual patient cohort.

Authors:  Gang Fang; Izabela E Annis; Jennifer Elston-Lafata; Samuel Cykert
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2019-10-01       Impact factor: 4.497

2.  Squeezing the balloon: propensity scores and unmeasured covariate balance.

Authors:  John M Brooks; Robert L Ohsfeldt
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2012-12-06       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Treatment Effect Estimation Using Nonlinear Two-Stage Instrumental Variable Estimators: Another Cautionary Note.

Authors:  Cole G Chapman; John M Brooks
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-02-19       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  Assessing the ability of an instrumental variable causal forest algorithm to personalize treatment evidence using observational data: the case of early surgery for shoulder fracture.

Authors:  John M Brooks; Cole G Chapman; Sarah B Floyd; Brian K Chen; Charles A Thigpen; Michael Kissenberth
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2022-07-11       Impact factor: 4.612

5.  Understanding Treatment Effect Terminology in Pain and Symptom Management Research.

Authors:  Melissa M Garrido; Bryan Dowd; Paul L Hebert; Matthew L Maciejewski
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2016-05-21       Impact factor: 3.612

6.  Pancreatectomy predicts improved survival for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: results of an instrumental variable analysis.

Authors:  Bradley D McDowell; Cole G Chapman; Brian J Smith; Anna M Button; Elizabeth A Chrischilles; James J Mezhir
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 12.969

7.  What is the effect of area size when using local area practice style as an instrument?

Authors:  John M Brooks; Yuexin Tang; Cole G Chapman; Elizabeth A Cook; Elizabeth A Chrischilles
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 6.437

8.  Benefits of ICU admission in critically ill patients: whether instrumental variable methods or propensity scores should be used.

Authors:  Romain Pirracchio; Charles Sprung; Didier Payen; Sylvie Chevret
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2011-09-21       Impact factor: 4.615

9.  Use of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin Receptor Blockers for Geriatric Ischemic Stroke Patients: Are the Rates Right?

Authors:  John M Brooks; Cole G Chapman; Manish Suneja; Mary C Schroeder; Michelle A Fravel; Kathleen M Schneider; June Wilwert; Yi-Jhen Li; Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Douglas W Brenton; Marian Brenton; Jennifer Robinson
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2018-05-30       Impact factor: 5.501

10.  Survival implications associated with variation in mastectomy rates for early-staged breast cancer.

Authors:  John M Brooks; Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Mary Beth Landrum; Kara B Wright; Gang Fang; Eric P Winer; Nancy L Keating
Journal:  Int J Surg Oncol       Date:  2012-08-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.