ArticleAccident; analysis and prevention2013
Inverse propensity weighting to adjust for bias in fatal crash samples.
Article in Accident; analysis and prevention, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) has data from all areas of the United States, but is limited to fatal crashes. The National Automotive Sampling System-General Estimates System (NASS-GES) includes all types of serious traffic crashes, but is limited to a few sampling areas. Combining the strengths of these two samples might offset their limitations.
methodsLogistic regression (allowing for sample design, and conditional upon selected person-, event-, and geographic-level factors) was used to determine the propensity (P(FC)) for each injured person in 2002-2008 NASS-GES data to be in a fatal crash sample. NASS-GES subjects injured in fatal crashes were then reweighted by a factor of W(FC)=(1/P(FC)) to create a "pseudopopulation". The weights (W(FC)) derived from NASS-GES were also applied to injured subjects in 2007 FARS data to create another pseudopopulation. Characteristics and mortality predictions from these artificial pseudopopulations were compared to those obtained using the original NASS-GES sample. The sum of W(FC) for FARS cases was also used to estimate the number of crash injuries for rural and urban locations, and compared to independently reported data.
resultsCompared to regression results using the original NASS-GES sample, unadjusted models based on fatal crash samples gave inaccurate estimates of covariate effects on mortality for injured subjects. After reweighting using W(FC), estimates based upon the pseudopopulations were similar to results obtained using the original NASS-GES sample. The sum of W(FC) for FARS cases gave reasonable estimates for the number of crash injuries in rural and urban locations, and provided an estimate of the rural effect on mortality after controlling for other factors.
conclusionsWeights derived from analysis of NASS-GES data (the inverse propensity for selection into a fatal crash sample) allow appropriate adjustment for selection bias in fatal crash samples, including FARS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.