Literature DB >> 30649165

Evaluating Flexible Modeling of Continuous Covariates in Inverse-Weighted Estimators.

Ryan P Kyle1, Erica E M Moodie1, Marina B Klein1,2, Michał Abrahamowicz1,3.   

Abstract

Correct specification of the exposure model is essential for unbiased estimation in marginal structural models with inverse-probability-of-treatment weights. However, although flexible modeling is commonplace when estimating effects of continuous covariates in outcome models, its use is less frequent in estimation of inverse probability weights. Using simulations, we assess the accuracy of the treatment effect estimates and covariate balance obtained with different exposure model specifications when the true relationship between a continuous, possibly time-varying covariate Lt and the logit of the probability of exposure is nonlinear. Specifically, we compare 4 approaches to modeling the effect of Lt when estimating inverse probability weights: a linear function, the covariate-balancing propensity score, and 2 easy-to-implement flexible methods that relax the assumption of linearity: cubic regression splines and fractional polynomials. Using data from 2 empirical studies, we compare linear exposure models with flexible exposure models to estimate the effect of sustained virological response to hepatitis C virus treatment on the progression of liver fibrosis. Our simulation results demonstrate that ignoring important nonlinear relationships when fitting the exposure model may provide poorer covariate balance and induce substantial bias in the estimated exposure-outcome associations. Analysts should routinely consider flexible modeling of continuous covariates when estimating inverse-probability-of-treatment weights.
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  causal inference; fractional polynomials; marginal structural models; model misspecification; splines

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30649165      PMCID: PMC6545287          DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwz004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0002-9262            Impact factor:   4.897


  32 in total

1.  Joint estimation of time-dependent and non-linear effects of continuous covariates on survival.

Authors:  Michal Abrahamowicz; Todd A MacKenzie
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2007-01-30       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Demystifying optimal dynamic treatment regimes.

Authors:  Erica E M Moodie; Thomas S Richardson; David A Stephens
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  Improving propensity score estimators' robustness to model misspecification using super learner.

Authors:  Romain Pirracchio; Maya L Petersen; Mark van der Laan
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2014-12-16       Impact factor: 4.897

Review 4.  Adjustment for continuous confounders: an example of how to prevent residual confounding.

Authors:  Rolf H H Groenwold; Olaf H Klungel; Douglas G Altman; Yolanda van der Graaf; Arno W Hoes; Karel G M Moons
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2013-02-11       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  The relationship between disease activity and expert physician's decision to start major treatment in active systemic lupus erythematosus: a decision aid for development of entry criteria for clinical trials.

Authors:  M Abrahamowicz; P R Fortin; R du Berger; V Nayak; C Neville; M H Liang
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 4.666

6.  2014 evidence-based guideline for the management of high blood pressure in adults: report from the panel members appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8).

Authors:  Paul A James; Suzanne Oparil; Barry L Carter; William C Cushman; Cheryl Dennison-Himmelfarb; Joel Handler; Daniel T Lackland; Michael L LeFevre; Thomas D MacKenzie; Olugbenga Ogedegbe; Sidney C Smith; Laura P Svetkey; Sandra J Taler; Raymond R Townsend; Jackson T Wright; Andrew S Narva; Eduardo Ortiz
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2014-02-05       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Treatment Prediction, Balance, and Propensity Score Adjustment.

Authors:  Erica E M Moodie; David A Stephens
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 4.822

8.  Plasmode simulation for the evaluation of pharmacoepidemiologic methods in complex healthcare databases.

Authors:  Jessica M Franklin; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Jennifer M Polinski; Jeremy A Rassen
Journal:  Comput Stat Data Anal       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 1.681

9.  Interaction of treatment with a continuous variable: simulation study of significance level for several methods of analysis.

Authors:  Patrick Royston; Willi Sauerbrei
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-04-12       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  STRengthening analytical thinking for observational studies: the STRATOS initiative.

Authors:  Willi Sauerbrei; Michal Abrahamowicz; Douglas G Altman; Saskia le Cessie; James Carpenter
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2014-07-30       Impact factor: 2.373

View more
  2 in total

1.  Comparative effectiveness of ventricular tachycardia ablation vs. escalated antiarrhythmic drug therapy by location of myocardial infarction: a sub-study of the VANISH trial.

Authors:  Michelle Samuel; Lena Rivard; Isabelle Nault; Lorne Gula; Vidal Essebag; Ratika Parkash; Laurence D Sterns; Paul Khairy; John L Sapp
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2022-07-15       Impact factor: 5.486

2.  Formulating causal questions and principled statistical answers.

Authors:  Els Goetghebeur; Saskia le Cessie; Bianca De Stavola; Erica Em Moodie; Ingeborg Waernbaum
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2020-09-23       Impact factor: 2.497

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.