Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Evaluation and comparison of covariate balance metrics in studies with time-dependent confounding

Published 13 Mar 2024 in stat.ME | (2403.08577v1)

Abstract: Marginal structural models have been increasingly used by analysts in recent years to account for confounding bias in studies with time-varying treatments. The parameters of these models are often estimated using inverse probability of treatment weighting. To ensure that the estimated weights adequately control confounding, it is possible to check for residual imbalance between treatment groups in the weighted data. Several balance metrics have been developed and compared in the cross-sectional case but have not yet been evaluated and compared in longitudinal studies with time-varying treatment. We have first extended the definition of several balance metrics to the case of a time-varying treatment, with or without censoring. We then compared the performance of these balance metrics in a simulation study by assessing the strength of the association between their estimated level of imbalance and bias. We found that the Mahalanobis balance performed best.Finally, the method was illustrated for estimating the cumulative effect of statins exposure over one year on the risk of cardiovascular disease or death in people aged 65 and over in population-wide administrative data. This illustration confirms the feasibility of employing our proposed metrics in large databases with multiple time-points.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (29)
  1. Jackson JW. Diagnostics for confounding of time-varying and other joint exposures. Epidemiology. 2016. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000547
  2. Austin PC, Stuart EA. Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Statistics in Medicine. 2015;34(28):3661–79.
  3. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.2188
  4. doi: 10.1002/sim.6058
  5. Rubin DB. Bias Reduction Using Mahalanobis-Metric Matching. International Biometric Society. 1980;36(2):293–298.
  6. Austin P. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Statistics in Medicine. 2009;28:3083–3107. doi: 10.1002/sim.3697
  7. Stefano M. Iacus GK, Porro G. Multivariate Matching Methods That Are Monotonic Imbalance Bounding. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 2011;106(493):345-361. doi: 10.1198/jasa.2011.tm09599
  8. Greifer N. cobalt: Covariate Balance Tables and Plots. R Package Version 4.5.3. 2024.
  9. Thoemmes F, Ong AD. A primer on inverse probability of treatment weighting and marginal structural models. Emerging Adulthood. 2016;4(1):40–59.
  10. Cole SR, Hernán MA. Constructing Inverse Probability Weights for Marginal Structural Models. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2008;168(6):656-664. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwn164
  11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.8132
  12. Agresti A. Categorical data analysis. 792. John Wiley & Sons, 2012.
  13. doi: 10.1007/s10742-022-00280-0
  14. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018174
  15. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.11.020
  16. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwu253
  17. doi: 10.1080/02664763.2021.1911966
  18. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwab201
  19. doi: doi:10.2202/1557-4679.1106
  20. Silverman BW. Density estimation for statistics and data analysis. Routledge, 2018.
  21. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.08.011
  22. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwr364
  23. Pearl J. On a class of bias-amplifying variables that endanger effect estimates. arXiv preprint arXiv:1203.3503. 2012.
  24. doi: 10.1001/jama.282.24.2340
  25. doi: 10.1053/euhj.2001.2775
  26. Cheung BMY, Lam KSL. Never too old for statin treatment?. The Lancet. 2019;393(10170):379–380. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32263-3
  27. doi: doi:10.2202/1557-4679.1208
  28. PMID: 37750253doi: 10.1177/09622802231202384
  29. Rubin DB. The design versus the analysis of observational studies for causal effects: parallels with the design of randomized trials. Statistics in Medicine. 2007;26(1):20–36. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2739
Citations (1)

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 1 tweet with 0 likes about this paper.