Literature DB >> 26037527

An imputation-based solution to using mismeasured covariates in propensity score analysis.

Yenny Webb-Vargas1, Kara E Rudolph2,3,4, David Lenis1, Peter Murakami1, Elizabeth A Stuart1,2,5.   

Abstract

Although covariate measurement error is likely the norm rather than the exception, methods for handling covariate measurement error in propensity score methods have not been widely investigated. We consider a multiple imputation-based approach that uses an external calibration sample with information on the true and mismeasured covariates, multiple imputation for external calibration, to correct for the measurement error, and investigate its performance using simulation studies. As expected, using the covariate measured with error leads to bias in the treatment effect estimate. In contrast, the multiple imputation for external calibration method can eliminate almost all the bias. We confirm that the outcome must be used in the imputation process to obtain good results, a finding related to the idea of congenial imputation and analysis in the broader multiple imputation literature. We illustrate the multiple imputation for external calibration approach using a motivating example estimating the effects of living in a disadvantaged neighborhood on mental health and substance use outcomes among adolescents. These results show that estimating the propensity score using covariates measured with error leads to biased estimates of treatment effects, but when a calibration data set is available, multiple imputation for external calibration can be used to help correct for such bias.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Causal inference; measurement error; multiple imputation; nonexperimental study

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26037527      PMCID: PMC4668240          DOI: 10.1177/0962280215588771

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


  21 in total

1.  Area characteristics and individual-level socioeconomic position indicators in three population-based epidemiologic studies.

Authors:  A V Diez-Roux; C I Kiefe; D R Jacobs; M Haan; S A Jackson; F J Nieto; C C Paton; R Schulz; A V Roux
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 3.797

2.  On using summary statistics from an external calibration sample to correct for covariate measurement error.

Authors:  Ying Guo; Roderick J Little; Daniel S McConnell
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 4.822

3.  Systematic differences in treatment effect estimates between propensity score methods and logistic regression.

Authors:  Edwin P Martens; Wiebe R Pestman; Anthonius de Boer; Svetlana V Belitser; Olaf H Klungel
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2008-05-03       Impact factor: 7.196

4.  Inverse probability weighting with error-prone covariates.

Authors:  Daniel F McCaffrey; J R Lockwood; Claude M Setodji
Journal:  Biometrika       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 2.445

5.  Does exposure prediction bias health-effect estimation?: The relationship between confounding adjustment and exposure prediction.

Authors:  Matthew Cefalu; Francesca Dominici
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 4.822

6.  Generalizing observational study results: applying propensity score methods to complex surveys.

Authors:  Eva H Dugoff; Megan Schuler; Elizabeth A Stuart
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2013-07-16       Impact factor: 3.402

7.  Neighbourhood environments and mortality in an elderly cohort: results from the cardiovascular health study.

Authors:  Ana V Diez Roux; Luisa N Borrell; Mary Haan; Sharon A Jackson; Richard Schultz
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 3.710

8.  Neighborhood disadvantage in context: the influence of urbanicity on the association between neighborhood disadvantage and adolescent emotional disorders.

Authors:  Kara E Rudolph; Elizabeth A Stuart; Thomas A Glass; Kathleen R Merikangas
Journal:  Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol       Date:  2013-06-11       Impact factor: 4.328

9.  National comorbidity survey replication adolescent supplement (NCS-A): II. Overview and design.

Authors:  Ronald C Kessler; Shelli Avenevoli; E Jane Costello; Jennifer Greif Green; Michael J Gruber; Steven Heeringa; Kathleen R Merikangas; Beth-Ellen Pennell; Nancy A Sampson; Alan M Zaslavsky
Journal:  J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 8.829

10.  National comorbidity survey replication adolescent supplement (NCS-A): III. Concordance of DSM-IV/CIDI diagnoses with clinical reassessments.

Authors:  Ronald C Kessler; Shelli Avenevoli; Jennifer Green; Michael J Gruber; Margaret Guyer; Yulei He; Robert Jin; Joan Kaufman; Nancy A Sampson; Alan M Zaslavsky; Kathleen R Merikangas
Journal:  J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 8.829

View more
  6 in total

1.  Propensity scores with misclassified treatment assignment: a likelihood-based adjustment.

Authors:  Danielle Braun; Malka Gorfine; Giovanni Parmigiani; Nils D Arvold; Francesca Dominici; Corwin Zigler
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2017-10-01       Impact factor: 5.899

2.  Propensity Score-Based Estimators With Multiple Error-Prone Covariates.

Authors:  Hwanhee Hong; David A Aaby; Juned Siddique; Elizabeth A Stuart
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2019-01-01       Impact factor: 4.897

3.  Using Sensitivity Analyses for Unobserved Confounding to Address Covariate Measurement Error in Propensity Score Methods.

Authors:  Kara E Rudolph; Elizabeth A Stuart
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 4.897

4.  Bias Reduction Methods for Propensity Scores Estimated from Error-Prone EHR-Derived Covariates.

Authors:  Joanna Harton; Ronac Mamtani; Nandita Mitra; Rebecca A Hubbard
Journal:  Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol       Date:  2020-09-10

5.  Propensity Scores in Pharmacoepidemiology: Beyond the Horizon.

Authors:  John W Jackson; Ian Schmid; Elizabeth A Stuart
Journal:  Curr Epidemiol Rep       Date:  2017-11-06

6.  Quantitative Bias Analysis for a Misclassified Confounder: A Comparison Between Marginal Structural Models and Conditional Models for Point Treatments.

Authors:  Linda Nab; Rolf H H Groenwold; Maarten van Smeden; Ruth H Keogh
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2020-11       Impact factor: 4.860

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.