Abstract: Observational studies are increasingly being used in medicine to estimate the effects of treatments or exposures on outcomes. To minimize the potential for confounding when estimating treatment effects, propensity score methods are frequently implemented. Often outcomes are the time to event. While it is common to report the treatment effect as a relative effect, such as the hazard ratio, reporting the effect using an absolute measure of effect is also important. One commonly used absolute measure of effect is the risk difference or difference in probability of the occurrence of an event within a specified duration of follow-up between a treatment and comparison group. We first describe methods for point and variance estimation of the risk difference when using weighting or matching based on the propensity score when outcomes are time-to-event. Next, we conducted Monte Carlo simulations to compare the relative performance of these methods with respect to bias of the point estimate, accuracy of variance estimates, and coverage of estimated confidence intervals. The results of the simulation generally support the use of weighting methods (untrimmed ATT weights and IPTW) or caliper matching when the prevalence of treatment is low for point estimation. For standard error estimation the simulation results support the use of weighted robust standard errors, bootstrap methods, or matching with a naïve standard error (i.e., Greenwood method). The methods considered in the article are illustrated using a real-world example in which we estimate the effect of discharge prescribing of statins on patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction.
(© 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)
References: Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70:41-55.
Cook RJ, Sackett DL. The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. BMJ. 1995;310:452-454.
BMJ Editors. Article Types and Preparation at the BMJ. 2022. Accessed January 10, 2022 https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/article-types.
Austin PC, Schuster T. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating absolute effects of treatments on survival outcomes: a simulation study. Stat Methods Med Res. 2016;25:2214-2237.
Austin PC. Variance estimation when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) with survival analysis. Stat Med. 2016;35:5642-5655.
Xie J, Liu C. Adjusted Kaplan-Meier estimator and log-rank test with inverse probability of treatment weighting for survival data. Stat Med. 2005;24:3089-3110.
Therneau T. A package for survival analysis in R. Unpublished August 23, 2021.
Lee BK, Lessler J, Stuart EA. Weight trimming and propensity score weighting. PLoS One. 2011;6:e18174.
Rubin D. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. J Educ Psychol. 1974;66:688-701.
Hernán MA, Robins JM. Causal Inference: What If. Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2020.
Klein JP, Moeschberger ML. Survival Analysis: Techniques for Censored and Truncated Data. 2nd ed. Springer; 2010.
Li L, Greene T. A weighting analogue to pair matching in propensity score analysis. Int J Biostat. 2013;9:215-234.
Samuels LR, Greevy RA. The Average Treatment Effect on the Evenly Matchable Units (ATM): A Valuable Estimand in Causal Inference. International Biometric Society Eastern North American Region Spring Meeting; 2018.
Cole SR, Hernan MA. Constructing inverse probability weights for marginal structural models. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;168:656-664.
Hirano K, Imbens G, Ridder G. Efficient estimation of average treatment effects using the estimated propensity score. Econometrica. 2003;71:1161-1189.
Cafri G, Coplan P, Zhang S, Berlin JA. Selecting an optimal Design for a non-randomized Comparative Study: a comment on “some considerations on design and analysis plan on a nonrandomized comparative study utilizing propensity score methodology for medical device premarket evaluation.”. Stat Biopharm Res. 2022;14:262-264.
Varma N, Hu Y, Connolly AT, et al. Gain in real-world cardiac resynchronization therapy efficacy with SyncAV dynamic optimization: heart failure hospitalizations and costs. Heart Rhythm. 2021;18:1577-1585.
Austin PC, Small DS. The use of bootstrapping when using propensity-score matching without replacement: a simulation study. Stat Med. 2014;33:4306-4319.
Abadie A, Imbens GW. Notes and comments on the failure of the bootstrap for matching estimators. Econometrica. 2008;76:1537-1557.
Hill J, Reiter JP. Interval estimation for treatment effects using propensity score matching. Stat Med. 2006;25:2230-2256.
McCaffrey DF, Ridgeway G, Morral AR. Propensity score estimation with boosted regression for evaluating causal effects in observational studies. Psychol Methods. 2004;9:403-425.
Jaeckel L. The Infinitesimal Jackknife. Bell Laboratories Memorandum #MM 72-1215-11. Bell Laboratories; 1972.
Andersen PK, Perme MP. Pseudo-observations in survival analysis. Stat Methods Med Res. 2010;19:71-99.
Austin PC. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal hazard ratios. Stat Med. 2013;32:2837-2849.
Bender R, Augustin T, Blettner M. Generating survival times to simulate cox proportional hazards models. Stat Med. 2005;24:1713-1723.
Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman & Hall; 1993.
Processing Request
No Comments.