Literature DB >> 25042626

Covariance adjustment on propensity parameters for continuous treatment in linear models.

Wei Yang1, Marshall M Joffe, Sean Hennessy, Harold I Feldman.   

Abstract

Propensity scores are widely used to control for confounding when estimating the effect of a binary treatment in observational studies. They have been generalized to ordinal and continuous treatments in the recent literature. Following the definition of propensity function and its parameterizations (called the propensity parameter in this paper) proposed by Imai and van Dyk, we explore sufficient conditions for selecting propensity parameters to control for confounding for continuous treatments in the context of regression-based adjustment in linear models. Typically, investigators make parametric assumptions about the form of the dose-response function for a continuous treatment. Such assumptions often allow the analyst to use only a subset of the propensity parameters to control confounding. When the treatment is the only predictor in the structural, that is, causal model, it is sufficient to adjust only for the propensity parameters that characterize the expectation of the treatment variable or its functional form. When the structural model includes selected baseline covariates other than the treatment variable, those baseline covariates, in addition to the propensity parameters, must also be adjusted in the model. We demonstrate these points with an example estimating the dose-response relationship for the effect of erythropoietin on hematocrit level in patients with end-stage renal disease.
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  confounding; generalized propensity score; propensity parameter; treatment covariate interaction

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25042626      PMCID: PMC4190156          DOI: 10.1002/sim.6252

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


  10 in total

Review 1.  Invited commentary: propensity scores.

Authors:  M M Joffe; P R Rosenbaum
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1999-08-15       Impact factor: 4.897

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.  USRDS: the United States Renal Data System.

Authors: 
Journal:  Am J Kidney Dis       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 8.860

4.  Collaborative double robust targeted maximum likelihood estimation.

Authors:  Mark J van der Laan; Susan Gruber
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2010-05-17       Impact factor: 0.968

5.  Estimating exposure effects by modelling the expectation of exposure conditional on confounders.

Authors:  J M Robins; S D Mark; W K Newey
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  The effect of epoetin dose on hematocrit.

Authors:  D Cotter; Y Zhang; M Thamer; J Kaufman; M A Hernán
Journal:  Kidney Int       Date:  2007-11-14       Impact factor: 10.612

7.  Standardized estimates from categorical regression models.

Authors:  M M Joffe; S Greenland
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1995-10-15       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Generalized propensity score for estimating the average treatment effect of multiple treatments.

Authors:  Ping Feng; Xiao-Hua Zhou; Qing-Ming Zou; Ming-Yu Fan; Xiao-Song Li
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2011-02-24       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Matching With Doses in an Observational Study of a Media Campaign Against Drug Abuse.

Authors:  Bo Lu; Elaine Zanutto; Robert Hornik; Paul R Rosenbaum
Journal:  J Am Stat Assoc       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 5.033

10.  A tutorial on propensity score estimation for multiple treatments using generalized boosted models.

Authors:  Daniel F McCaffrey; Beth Ann Griffin; Daniel Almirall; Mary Ellen Slaughter; Rajeev Ramchand; Lane F Burgette
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-03-18       Impact factor: 2.373

  10 in total
  4 in total

1.  Assessing the performance of the generalized propensity score for estimating the effect of quantitative or continuous exposures on binary outcomes.

Authors:  Peter C Austin
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2018-03-06       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 2.  Propensity score matching with R: conventional methods and new features.

Authors:  Qin-Yu Zhao; Jing-Chao Luo; Ying Su; Yi-Jie Zhang; Guo-Wei Tu; Zhe Luo
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2021-05

3.  Assessing covariate balance when using the generalized propensity score with quantitative or continuous exposures.

Authors:  Peter C Austin
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2018-02-08       Impact factor: 3.021

4.  Assessing the performance of the generalized propensity score for estimating the effect of quantitative or continuous exposures on survival or time-to-event outcomes.

Authors:  Peter C Austin
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2018-06-05       Impact factor: 3.021

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.