Literature DB >> 25715391

Estimation of causal effects of binary treatments in unconfounded studies with one continuous covariate.

R Gutman1, D B Rubin2.   

Abstract

The estimation of causal effects in nonrandomized studies should comprise two distinct phases: design, with no outcome data available; and analysis of the outcome data according to a specified protocol. Here, we review and compare point and interval estimates of common statistical procedures for estimating causal effects (i.e. matching, subclassification, weighting, and model-based adjustment) with a scalar continuous covariate and a scalar continuous outcome. We show, using an extensive simulation, that some highly advocated methods have poor operating characteristics. In many conditions, matching for the point estimate combined with within-group matching for sampling variance estimation, with or without covariance adjustment, appears to be the most efficient valid method of those evaluated. These results provide new conclusions and advice regarding the merits of currently used procedures.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Causal inference; Rubin causal model; matching; regression adjustment; spline

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25715391      PMCID: PMC4779067          DOI: 10.1177/0962280215570722

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


  15 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Type I error rates, coverage of confidence intervals, and variance estimation in propensity-score matched analyses.

Authors:  Peter C Austin
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2009-04-14       Impact factor: 0.968

Review 4.  Propensity score methods gave similar results to traditional regression modeling in observational studies: a systematic review.

Authors:  Baiju R Shah; Andreas Laupacis; Janet E Hux; Peter C Austin
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2005-04-19       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Bayesian propensity score analysis for observational data.

Authors:  Lawrence C McCandless; Paul Gustafson; Peter C Austin
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2009-01-15       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Robust estimation of causal effects of binary treatments in unconfounded studies with dichotomous outcomes.

Authors:  R Gutman; D B Rubin
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2012-09-28       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  Testing treatment effects in unconfounded studies under model misspecification: logistic regression, discretization, and their combination.

Authors:  M Z Cangul; Y R Chretien; R Gutman; D B Rubin
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2009-09-10       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  The relative ability of different propensity score methods to balance measured covariates between treated and untreated subjects in observational studies.

Authors:  Peter C Austin
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2009-08-14       Impact factor: 2.583

9.  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

10.  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

View more
  9 in total

1.  Imputation approaches for potential outcomes in causal inference.

Authors:  Daniel Westreich; Jessie K Edwards; Stephen R Cole; Robert W Platt; Sunni L Mumford; Enrique F Schisterman
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2015-07-25       Impact factor: 7.196

2.  Estimation of causal effects of binary treatments in unconfounded studies.

Authors:  Roee Gutman; Donald B Rubin
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2015-05-26       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 3.  Oversampling and replacement strategies in propensity score matching: a critical review focused on small sample size in clinical settings.

Authors:  Daniele Bottigliengo; Ileana Baldi; Corrado Lanera; Giulia Lorenzoni; Jonida Bejko; Tomaso Bottio; Vincenzo Tarzia; Massimiliano Carrozzini; Gino Gerosa; Paola Berchialla; Dario Gregori
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2021-11-22       Impact factor: 4.615

4.  Robust inference for skewed data in health sciences.

Authors:  Amarnath Nandy; Ayanendranath Basu; Abhik Ghosh
Journal:  J Appl Stat       Date:  2021-02-25       Impact factor: 1.416

5.  A MULTIPLE IMPUTATION PROCEDURE FOR RECORD LINKAGE AND CAUSAL INFERENCE TO ESTIMATE THE EFFECTS OF HOME-DELIVERED MEALS.

Authors:  Mingyang Shan; Kali S Thomas; Roee Gutman
Journal:  Ann Appl Stat       Date:  2021-03-18       Impact factor: 1.959

6.  Flexible regression approach to propensity score analysis and its relationship with matching and weighting.

Authors:  Huzhang Mao; Liang Li
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2020-03-17       Impact factor: 2.497

7.  Propensity score analysis with partially observed covariates: How should multiple imputation be used?

Authors:  Clémence Leyrat; Shaun R Seaman; Ian R White; Ian Douglas; Liam Smeeth; Joseph Kim; Matthieu Resche-Rigon; James R Carpenter; Elizabeth J Williamson
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2017-06-02       Impact factor: 3.021

8.  Propensity Score Analysis with Partially Observed Baseline Covariates: A Practical Comparison of Methods for Handling Missing Data.

Authors:  Daniele Bottigliengo; Giulia Lorenzoni; Honoria Ocagli; Matteo Martinato; Paola Berchialla; Dario Gregori
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-06-22       Impact factor: 3.390

9.  Estimating the effect of treatment on binary outcomes using full matching on the propensity score.

Authors:  Peter C Austin; Elizabeth A Stuart
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2015-09-01       Impact factor: 3.021

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.