ArticleThe annals of applied statistics2013
EVALUATING COSTS WITH UNMEASURED CONFOUNDING: A SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR THE TREATMENT EFFECT.
Article in The annals of applied statistics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Net benefit separation and the determination curve: A probabilistic framework for cost-effectiveness estimation.Statistical methods in medical research · 2021Article
- Nested g-computation: A causal approach to analysis of censored medical costs in the presence of time-varying treatment.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C, Applied statistics · 2020Article
- Estimating cost-effectiveness from claims and registry data with measured and unmeasured confounders.Statistical methods in medical research · 2019Article
- Propensity score and doubly robust methods for estimating the effect of treatment on censored cost.Statistics in medicine · 2016Article
- Cost-effectiveness of revascularization strategies: the ASCERT study.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2015Observational
- Illustration of the Impact of Unmeasured Confounding Within an Economic Evaluation Based on Nonrandomized Data.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Estimates of the effects of treatment on cost from observational studies are subject to bias if there are unmeasured confounders. It is therefore advisable in practice to assess the potential magnitude of such biases. We derive a general adjustment formula for loglinear models of mean cost and explore special cases under plausible assumptions about the distribution of the unmeasured confounder. We assess the performance of the adjustment by simulation, in particular, examining robustness to a key assumption of conditional independence between the unmeasured and measured covariates given the treatment indicator. We apply our method to SEER-Medicare cost data for a stage II/III muscle-invasive bladder cancer cohort. We evaluate the costs for radical cystectomy
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.