Literature DB >> 33226116

Power and sample size for observational studies of point exposure effects.

Bonnie E Shook-Sa1, Michael G Hudgens1.   

Abstract

Inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTWs) are commonly used to control for confounding when estimating causal effects of point exposures from observational data. When planning a study that will be analyzed with IPTWs, determining the required sample size for a given level of statistical power is challenging because of the effect of weighting on the variance of the estimated causal means. This paper considers the utility of the design effect to quantify the effect of weighting on the precision of causal estimates. The design effect is defined as the ratio of the variance of the causal mean estimator divided by the variance of a naïve estimator if, counter to fact, no confounding had been present and weights were not needed. A simple, closed-form approximation of the design effect is derived that is outcome invariant and can be estimated during the study design phase. Once the design effect is approximated for each treatment group, sample size calculations are conducted as for a randomized trial, but with variances inflated by the design effects to account for weighting. Simulations demonstrate the accuracy of the design effect approximation, and practical considerations are discussed.
© 2020 The International Biometric Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Hájek estimator; causal inference; design effect; effective sample size; inverse probability weighting; marginal structural modeling

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33226116      PMCID: PMC8141060          DOI: 10.1111/biom.13405

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biometrics        ISSN: 0006-341X            Impact factor:   2.571


  15 in total

1.  Marginal structural models to estimate the causal effect of zidovudine on the survival of HIV-positive men.

Authors:  M A Hernán; B Brumback; J M Robins
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 4.822

2.  Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology.

Authors:  J M Robins; M A Hernán; B Brumback
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 4.822

3.  Sensitivity analyses for unmeasured confounding assuming a marginal structural model for repeated measures.

Authors:  Babette A Brumback; Miguel A Hernán; Sebastien J P A Haneuse; James M Robins
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2004-03-15       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Effects of adjusting for instrumental variables on bias and precision of effect estimates.

Authors:  Jessica A Myers; Jeremy A Rassen; Joshua J Gagne; Krista F Huybrechts; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Kenneth J Rothman; Marshall M Joffe; Robert J Glynn
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2011-10-24       Impact factor: 4.897

5.  Propensity score estimation with boosted regression for evaluating causal effects in observational studies.

Authors:  Daniel F McCaffrey; Greg Ridgeway; Andrew R Morral
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2004-12

Review 6.  Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores.

Authors:  D B Rubin
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1997-10-15       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  The Calculus of M-Estimation in R with geex.

Authors:  Bradley C Saul; Michael G Hudgens
Journal:  J Stat Softw       Date:  2020-02-18       Impact factor: 6.440

8.  A tutorial on propensity score estimation for multiple treatments using generalized boosted models.

Authors:  Daniel F McCaffrey; Beth Ann Griffin; Daniel Almirall; Mary Ellen Slaughter; Rajeev Ramchand; Lane F Burgette
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-03-18       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples.

Authors:  Peter C Austin
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2009-11-10       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 10.  Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies.

Authors:  Peter C Austin; Elizabeth A Stuart
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2015-08-03       Impact factor: 2.373

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Matching Methods for Confounder Adjustment: An Addition to the Epidemiologist's Toolbox.

Authors:  Noah Greifer; Elizabeth A Stuart
Journal:  Epidemiol Rev       Date:  2022-01-14       Impact factor: 4.280

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.