Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21483818›Full record

ArticlePloS one2011

Weight trimming and propensity score weighting.

Brian K Lee, Justin Lessler, Elizabeth A Stuart

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 187 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
187citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

187 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Improving Adherence to Smoking Cessation Treatment: Smoking Outcomes in a Web-based Randomized Trial.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2018
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Use of an online smoking cessation community promotes abstinence: Results of propensity score weighting.Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2015
    Trial
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

127 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Brian K LeeDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Drexel University School of Public Health, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America. bklee@drexel.edu
Justin Lessler
Elizabeth A Stuart

Funding

Estimating Population Effects of Mental Health interventionsK25MH083846 · NIMH · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI STUART, ELIZABETH A. · 2008 to 2012
$780k
NIMH NIH HHS K25 MH083846NIMH NIH HHS K25MH083846
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Propensity score weighting is sensitive to model misspecification and outlying weights that can unduly influence results. The authors investigated whether trimming large weights downward can improve the performance of propensity score weighting and whether the benefits of trimming differ by propensity score estimation method. In a simulation study, the authors examined the performance of weight trimming following logistic regression, classification and regression trees (CART), boosted CART, and random forests to estimate propensity score weights. Results indicate that although misspecified logistic regression propensity score models yield increased bias and standard errors, weight trimming following logistic regression can improve the accuracy and precision of final parameter estimates. In contrast, weight trimming did not improve the performance of boosted CART and random forests. The performance of boosted CART and random forests without weight trimming was similar to the best performance obtainable by weight trimmed logistic regression estimated propensity scores. While trimming may be used to optimize propensity score weights estimated using logistic regression, the optimal level of trimming is difficult to determine. These results indicate that although trimming can improve inferences in some settings, in order to consistently improve the performance of propensity score weighting, analysts should focus on the procedures leading to the generation of weights (i.e., proper specification of the propensity score model) rather than relying on ad-hoc methods such as weight trimming.

Indexed as

Propensity ScoreLogistic ModelsModels, Statistical

Identifiers

PMID21483818
PMCPMC3069059

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.