Literature DB >> 27976388

Covariate Balancing through Naturally Occurring Strata.

Farrokh Alemi1, Amr ElRafey1, Ivan Avramovic2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To provide an alternative to propensity scoring (PS) for the common situation where there are interacting covariates.
SETTING: We used 1.3 million assessments of residents of the United States Veterans Affairs nursing homes, collected from January 1, 2000, through October 9, 2012.
DESIGN: In stratified covariate balancing (SCB), data are divided into naturally occurring strata, where each stratum is an observed combination of the covariates. Within each stratum, cases with, and controls without, the target event are counted; controls are weighted to be as frequent as cases. This weighting procedure guarantees that covariates, or combination of covariates, are balanced, meaning they occur at the same rate among cases and controls. Finally, impact of the target event is calculated in the weighted data. We compare the performance of SCB, logistic regression (LR), and propensity scoring (PS) in simulated and real data. We examined the calibration of SCB and PS in predicting 6-month mortality from inability to eat, controlling for age, gender, and nine other disabilities for 296,051 residents in Veterans Affairs nursing homes. We also performed a simulation study, where outcomes were randomly generated from treatment, 10 covariates, and increasing number of covariate interactions. The accuracy of SCB, PS, and LR in recovering the simulated treatment effect was reported.
FINDINGS: In simulated environment, as the number of interactions among the covariates increased, SCB and properly specified LR remained accurate but pairwise LR and pairwise PS, the most common applications of these tools, performed poorly. In real data, application of SCB was practical. SCB was better calibrated than linear PS, the most common method of PS.
CONCLUSIONS: In environments where covariates interact, SCB is practical and more accurate than common methods of applying LR and PS. © Health Research and Educational Trust.

Keywords:  Balancing databases; causal impact; confounding; prognosis; propensity scoring

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27976388      PMCID: PMC5785330          DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.12628

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Serv Res        ISSN: 0017-9124            Impact factor:   3.402


  21 in total

1.  Principal stratification in causal inference.

Authors:  Constantine E Frangakis; Donald B Rubin
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Stratification for confounding--part 1: the Mantel-Haenszel formula.

Authors:  Giovanni Tripepi; Kitty J Jager; Friedo W Dekker; Carmine Zoccali
Journal:  Nephron Clin Pract       Date:  2010-07-28

Review 3.  Interaction between comorbidity and cancer.

Authors:  Martine Extermann
Journal:  Cancer Control       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 3.302

4.  The comparison of percentages in matched samples.

Authors:  W G COCHRAN
Journal:  Biometrika       Date:  1950-12       Impact factor: 2.445

5.  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

6.  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

7.  Improving Prognostic Web Calculators: Violation of Preferential Risk Independence.

Authors:  Farrokh Alemi; Cari Levy; Bruce A Citron; Arthur R Williams; Etienne Pracht; Allison Williams
Journal:  J Palliat Med       Date:  2016-09-13       Impact factor: 2.947

8.  Dynamic balanced randomization for clinical trials.

Authors:  D F Signorini; O Leung; R J Simes; E Beller; V J Gebski; T Callaghan
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1993-12-30       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 9.  The method of minimization for allocation to clinical trials. a review.

Authors:  Neil W Scott; Gladys C McPherson; Craig R Ramsay; Marion K Campbell
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  2002-12

10.  Evaluation of the propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios in case of small sample size.

Authors:  Romain Pirracchio; Matthieu Resche-Rigon; Sylvie Chevret
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2012-05-30       Impact factor: 4.615

View more
  1 in total

1.  Effectiveness of common antidepressants: a post market release study.

Authors:  Farrokh Alemi; Hua Min; Melanie Yousefi; Laura K Becker; Christopher A Hane; Vijay S Nori; Janusz Wojtusiak
Journal:  EClinicalMedicine       Date:  2021-10-25
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.