Literature DB >> 23070806

Variable selection for propensity score models when estimating treatment effects on multiple outcomes: a simulation study.

Richard Wyss1, Cynthia J Girman, Robert J LoCasale, Alan M Brookhart, Til Stürmer.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: It is often preferable to simplify the estimation of treatment effects on multiple outcomes by using a single propensity score (PS) model. Variable selection in PS models impacts the efficiency and validity of treatment effects. However, the impact of different variable selection strategies on the estimated treatment effects in settings involving multiple outcomes is not well understood. The authors use simulations to evaluate the impact of different variable selection strategies on the bias and precision of effect estimates to provide insight into the performance of various PS models in settings with multiple outcomes.
METHODS: Simulated studies consisted of dichotomous treatment, two Poisson outcomes, and eight standard-normal covariates. Covariates were selected for the PS models based on their effects on treatment, a specific outcome, or both outcomes. The PSs were implemented using stratification, matching, and weighting (inverse probability treatment weighting).
RESULTS: PS models including only covariates affecting a specific outcome (outcome-specific models) resulted in the most efficient effect estimates. The PS model that only included covariates affecting either outcome (generic-outcome model) performed best among the models that simultaneously controlled measured confounding for both outcomes. Similar patterns were observed over the range of parameter values assessed and all PS implementation methods.
CONCLUSIONS: A single, generic-outcome model performed well compared with separate outcome-specific models in most scenarios considered. The results emphasize the benefit of using prior knowledge to identify covariates that affect the outcome when constructing PS models and support the potential to use a single, generic-outcome PS model when multiple outcomes are being examined.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23070806      PMCID: PMC3540180          DOI: 10.1002/pds.3356

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf        ISSN: 1053-8569            Impact factor:   2.890


  16 in total

1.  Data, design, and background knowledge in etiologic inference.

Authors:  J M Robins
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 4.822

2.  Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology.

Authors:  J M Robins; M A Hernán; B Brumback
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 4.822

3.  Invited commentary: understanding bias amplification.

Authors:  Judea Pearl
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2011-10-27       Impact factor: 4.897

4.  Variable selection for propensity score models.

Authors:  M Alan Brookhart; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Kenneth J Rothman; Robert J Glynn; Jerry Avorn; Til Stürmer
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2006-04-19       Impact factor: 4.897

Review 5.  A review of the application of propensity score methods yielded increasing use, advantages in specific settings, but not substantially different estimates compared with conventional multivariable methods.

Authors:  Til Stürmer; Manisha Joshi; Robert J Glynn; Jerry Avorn; Kenneth J Rothman; Sebastian Schneeweiss
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2005-10-13       Impact factor: 6.437

6.  A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study.

Authors:  Peter C Austin; Paul Grootendorst; Geoffrey M Anderson
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2007-02-20       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group.

Authors:  R B D'Agostino
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1998-10-15       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 8.  Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores.

Authors:  D B Rubin
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1997-10-15       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  The effectiveness of adjustment by subclassification in removing bias in observational studies.

Authors:  W G Cochran
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1968-06       Impact factor: 2.571

10.  Effect of highly active antiretroviral therapy on time to acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or death using marginal structural models.

Authors:  Stephen R Cole; Miguel A Hernán; James M Robins; Kathryn Anastos; Joan Chmiel; Roger Detels; Carolyn Ervin; Joseph Feldman; Ruth Greenblatt; Lawrence Kingsley; Shenghan Lai; Mary Young; Mardge Cohen; Alvaro Muñoz
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2003-10-01       Impact factor: 4.897

View more
  22 in total

1.  Model Misspecification When Excluding Instrumental Variables From PS Models in Settings Where Instruments Modify the Effects of Covariates on Treatment.

Authors:  Richard Wyss; Alan R Ellis; Mark Lunt; M Alan Brookhart; Robert J Glynn; Til Stürmer
Journal:  Epidemiol Methods       Date:  2014-12

2.  Comparative Safety and Effectiveness of Denosumab Versus Zoledronic Acid in Patients With Osteoporosis: A Cohort Study.

Authors:  Nam-Kyong Choi; Daniel H Solomon; Theodore N Tsacogianis; Joan E Landon; Hong Ji Song; Seoyoung C Kim
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2017-02-07       Impact factor: 6.741

3.  Single-arm trial of the second version of an acceptance & commitment therapy smartphone application for smoking cessation.

Authors:  Jonathan B Bricker; Wade Copeland; Kristin E Mull; Emily Y Zeng; Noreen L Watson; Katrina J Akioka; Jaimee L Heffner
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2016-11-04       Impact factor: 4.492

4.  Chasing balance and other recommendations for improving nonparametric propensity score models.

Authors:  B A Griffin; D McCaffrey; D Almirall; C Setodji; L Burgette
Journal:  J Causal Inference       Date:  2017-01-13

5.  Comparative Safety and Effectiveness of Direct-Acting Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin: a National Cohort Study of Nursing Home Residents.

Authors:  Matthew Alcusky; Jennifer Tjia; David D McManus; Anne L Hume; Marc Fisher; Kate L Lapane
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-04-06       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Methods for constructing and assessing propensity scores.

Authors:  Melissa M Garrido; Amy S Kelley; Julia Paris; Katherine Roza; Diane E Meier; R Sean Morrison; Melissa D Aldridge
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-04-30       Impact factor: 3.402

7.  Veridical Causal Inference using Propensity Score Methods for Comparative Effectiveness Research with Medical Claims.

Authors:  Ryan D Ross; Xu Shi; Megan E V Caram; Pheobe A Tsao; Paul Lin; Amy Bohnert; Min Zhang; Bhramar Mukherjee
Journal:  Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol       Date:  2020-10-20

8.  Investigation of the prognostic role of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in Idiopathic Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss based on propensity score matching: a retrospective observational study.

Authors:  Shiyuan Wu; Zaizai Cao; Fangling Shi; Bobei Chen
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2020-03-13       Impact factor: 2.503

9.  Cardiotoxicity of Use of Sequential Aromatase Inhibitors in Women With Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Farzin Khosrow-Khavar; Nathaniel Bouganim; Kristian B Filion; Samy Suissa; Laurent Azoulay
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2020-10-01       Impact factor: 4.897

10.  Preoperative statin administration does not protect against early postoperative acute respiratory distress syndrome: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Hemang Yadav; Ravi K Lingineni; Ericka J Slivinski; Katie A Stockler; Arun Subramanian; Gustavo S Oderich; Dennis A Wigle; Rickey E Carter; Daryl J Kor
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 5.108

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.