Literature DB >> 21170907

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

Obioha C Ukoumunne1, Elizabeth Williamson, Andrew B Forbes, Martin C Gulliford, John B Carlin.   

Abstract

Confounder-adjusted estimates of the risk difference are often difficult to obtain by direct regression adjustment. Estimates can be obtained from a propensity score-based method using inverse probability-of-exposure weights to balance groups defined by exposure status with respect to confounders. Simulation was used to evaluate the performance of this method. The simulation model incorporated a binary confounder and a normally distributed confounder into logistic models of exposure status, and disease status conditional on exposure status. Data were generated for combinations of values of several design parameters, including the odds ratio relating each of the confounders to exposure status, the odds ratio relating each of the confounders to disease status and the total sample size. For most design parameter combinations (474 of 486), the absolute bias in the estimated risk difference was less than 1 percentage point, and it was never greater than 3 percentage points. The confidence interval generally had close to nominal 95 per cent coverage, but was prone to poor coverage levels (as low as 78.5 per cent) when both the confounder-to-exposure and confounder-to-outcome odds ratios were 5, consistent with strong confounding. The simulation results showed that the conditions that are favourable for good performance of the weighting method are: reasonable overlap in the propensity score distributions of the exposed and non-exposed groups and a large sample size.
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21170907     DOI: 10.1002/sim.3935

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


  5 in total

1.  Association Between Handover of Anesthesia Care and Adverse Postoperative Outcomes Among Patients Undergoing Major Surgery.

Authors:  Philip M Jones; Richard A Cherry; Britney N Allen; Krista M Bray Jenkyn; Salimah Z Shariff; Suzanne Flier; Kelly N Vogt; Duminda N Wijeysundera
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2018-01-09       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Association between known or strongly suspected malignant hyperthermia susceptibility and postoperative outcomes: an observational population-based study.

Authors:  Philip M Jones; Britney N Allen; Richard A Cherry; Luc Dubois; Kelly N Vogt; Salimah Z Shariff; Krista M Bray Jenkyn; Sheila Riazi; Duminda N Wijeysundera
Journal:  Can J Anaesth       Date:  2018-11-12       Impact factor: 5.063

3.  Lifetime residential mobility history and self-rated health at midlife.

Authors:  Kuan-Chia Lin; Hui-Chuan Huang; Ya-Mei Bai; Pei-Chun Kuo
Journal:  J Epidemiol       Date:  2011-12-24       Impact factor: 3.211

4.  Variance reduction in randomised trials by inverse probability weighting using the propensity score.

Authors:  Elizabeth J Williamson; Andrew Forbes; Ian R White
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-09-30       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Enhanced invitation methods to increase uptake of NHS health checks: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Alice S Forster; Caroline Burgess; Lisa McDermott; Alison J Wright; Hiten Dodhia; Mark Conner; Jane Miller; Caroline Rudisill; Victoria Cornelius; Martin C Gulliford
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2014-08-30       Impact factor: 2.279

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.