Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25170178›Full record

ArticleStat2014

Propensity Score Estimation in the Presence of Length-biased Sampling: A Nonparametric Adjustment Approach.

Ashkan Ertefaie, Masoud Asgharian, David Stephens

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Stat, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Effect of team training on efficiency of trauma care in a Chinese hospital.The Journal of international medical research · 2018
    Article
  4. Estimating treatment effects in observational studies with both prevalent and incident cohorts.The Canadian journal of statistics = Revue canadienne de statistique · 2017
    Article
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.

Ashkan ErtefaieDepartment of Statistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Masoud AsgharianDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
David StephensDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Funding

THE REFINEMENT &APPLICATION OF MEDICAL DECISION MAKING IN PREVENTION SCIENCESP50DA010075 · NIDA · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY-UNIV PARK · PI LANZA, STEPHANIE T · 1996 to 2014
$24.5M
NIDA NIH HHS P50 DA010075
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The pervasive use of prevalent cohort studies on disease duration increasingly calls for an appropriate methodology to account for the biases that invariably accompany samples formed by such data. It is well-known, for example, that subjects with shorter lifetime are less likely to be present in such studies. Moreover, certain covariate values could be preferentially selected into the sample, being linked to the long-term survivors. The existing methodology for estimating the propensity score using data collected on prevalent cases requires the correct conditional survival/hazard function given the treatment and covariates. This requirement can be alleviated if the disease under study has stationary incidence, the so-called stationarity assumption. We propose a nonparametric adjustment technique based on a weighted estimating equation for estimating the propensity score which does not require modeling the conditional survival/hazard function when the stationarity assumption holds. The estimator's large-sample properties are established and its small-sample behavior is studied via simulation. The estimated propensity score is utilized to estimate the survival curves.

Indexed as

Causal inferenceLength-biased samplingPropensity scoreSurvival curve

Identifiers

PMID25170178
PMCPMC4142657

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.