Literature DB >> 25432690

Estimating the average treatment effects of nutritional label use using subclassification with regression adjustment.

Michael J Lopez1, Roee Gutman2.   

Abstract

Propensity score methods are common for estimating a binary treatment effect when treatment assignment is not randomized. When exposure is measured on an ordinal scale (i.e. low-medium-high), however, propensity score inference requires extensions which have received limited attention. Estimands of possible interest with an ordinal exposure are the average treatment effects between each pair of exposure levels. Using these estimands, it is possible to determine an optimal exposure level. Traditional methods, including dichotomization of the exposure or a series of binary propensity score comparisons across exposure pairs, are generally inadequate for identification of optimal levels. We combine subclassification with regression adjustment to estimate transitive, unbiased average causal effects across an ordered exposure, and apply our method on the 2005-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to estimate the effects of nutritional label use on body mass index.

Entities:  

Keywords:  National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey; causal inference; ordinal exposures; potential outcomes; propensity scores

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25432690      PMCID: PMC6247807          DOI: 10.1177/0962280214560046

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res        ISSN: 0962-2802            Impact factor:   3.021


  22 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.  Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of causal treatment effects: a comparative study.

Authors:  Jared K Lunceford; Marie Davidian
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2004-10-15       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Model misspecification and robustness in causal inference: comparing matching with doubly robust estimation.

Authors:  Ingeborg Waernbaum
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2012-02-23       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  On the limitations of comparative effectiveness research.

Authors:  Donald B Rubin
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2010-08-30       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Comment: Demystifying Double Robustness: A Comparison of Alternative Strategies for Estimating a Population Mean from Incomplete Data.

Authors:  Anastasios A Tsiatis; Marie Davidian
Journal:  Stat Sci       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 2.901

6.  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

7.  Exercise duration and intensity in a weight-loss program.

Authors:  Heather O Chambliss
Journal:  Clin J Sport Med       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 3.638

8.  Heart failure, chronic diuretic use, and increase in mortality and hospitalization: an observational study using propensity score methods.

Authors:  Ali Ahmed; Ahsan Husain; Thomas E Love; Giovanni Gambassi; Louis J Dell'Italia; Gary S Francis; Mihai Gheorghiade; Richard M Allman; Sreelatha Meleth; Robert C Bourge
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2006-05-18       Impact factor: 29.983

9.  Exploring large weight deletion and the ability to balance confounders when using inverse probability of treatment weighting in the presence of rare treatment decisions.

Authors:  Ryan D Kilpatrick; Dave Gilbertson; M Alan Brookhart; Eric Polley; Kenneth J Rothman; Brian D Bradbury
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2012-06-04       Impact factor: 2.890

10.  A randomized controlled trial of the effect of aerobic exercise training on feelings of energy and fatigue in sedentary young adults with persistent fatigue.

Authors:  Timothy W Puetz; Sara S Flowers; Patrick J O'Connor
Journal:  Psychother Psychosom       Date:  2008-02-14       Impact factor: 17.659

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.