Confounder‐adjusted estimates of the risk difference using propensity score‐based weighting
- 16 December 2010
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Statistics in Medicine
- Vol. 29 (30) , 3126-3136
Abstract
Confounder‐adjusted estimates of the risk difference are often difficult to obtain by direct regression adjustment. Estimates can be obtained from a propensity score‐based method using inverse probability‐of‐exposure weights to balance groups defined by exposure status with respect to confounders. Simulation was used to evaluate the performance of this method. The simulation model incorporated a binary confounder and a normally distributed confounder into logistic models of exposure status, and disease status conditional on exposure status. Data were generated for combinations of values of several design parameters, including the odds ratio relating each of the confounders to exposure status, the odds ratio relating each of the confounders to disease status and the total sample size. For most design parameter combinations (474 of 486), the absolute bias in the estimated risk difference was less than 1 percentage point, and it was never greater than 3 percentage points. The confidence interval generally had close to nominal 95 per cent coverage, but was prone to poor coverage levels (as low as 78.5 per cent) when both the confounder‐to‐exposure and confounder‐to‐outcome odds ratios were 5, consistent with strong confounding. The simulation results showed that the conditions that are favourable for good performance of the weighting method are: reasonable overlap in the propensity score distributions of the exposed and non‐exposed groups and a large sample size. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Keywords
This publication has 22 references indexed in Scilit:
- Constructing Inverse Probability Weights for Marginal Structural ModelsAmerican Journal of Epidemiology, 2008
- Inverse probability weighted estimation of the marginal odds ratio: Correspondence regarding ‘The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios’ by P. Austin, Statictics in Medicine, 2007; 26:3078–3094Statistics in Medicine, 2008
- Discussion of research using propensity‐score matching: Comments on ‘A critical appraisal of propensity‐score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003’ by Peter Austin, Statistics in MedicineStatistics in Medicine, 2008
- Relaxing the Rule of Ten Events per Variable in Logistic and Cox RegressionAmerican Journal of Epidemiology, 2006
- Estimating causal effects from epidemiological dataJournal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2006
- A review of the application of propensity score methods yielded increasing use, advantages in specific settings, but not substantially different estimates compared with conventional multivariable methodsJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2006
- Results of Multivariable Logistic Regression, Propensity Matching, Propensity Adjustment, and Propensity-based Weighting under Conditions of Nonuniform EffectAmerican Journal of Epidemiology, 2005
- Bilateral internal mammary artery grafting: are BIMA better?Heart, 2002
- Confounding and Collapsibility in Causal InferenceStatistical Science, 1999
- The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effectsBiometrika, 1983