Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29663579›Full record

Observational studyHealth economics2018

Analyzing medical costs with time-dependent treatment: The nested g-formula.

Andrew Spieker, Jason Roy, Nandita Mitra

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Health economics, 2018. 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. Article
  4. 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.

Andrew SpiekerDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania.ORCID 0000-0002-0548-8311
Jason RoyDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania.
Nandita MitraDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania.

Funding

Non-Parametric Bayesian Methods for Causal InferenceR01GM112327 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI ROY, JASON A · 2014 to 2017
$1.4M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM112327
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As medical expenses continue to rise, methods to properly analyze cost outcomes are becoming of increasing relevance when seeking to compare average costs across treatments. Inverse probability weighted regression models have been developed to address the challenge of cost censoring in order to identify intent-to-treat effects (i.e., to compare mean costs between groups on the basis of their initial treatment assignment, irrespective of any subsequent changes to their treatment status). In this paper, we describe a nested g-computation procedure that can be used to compare mean costs between two or more time-varying treatment regimes. We highlight the relative advantages and limitations of this approach when compared with existing regression-based models. We illustrate the utility of this approach as a means to inform public policy by applying it to a simulated data example motivated by costs associated with cancer treatments. Simulations confirm that inference regarding intent-to-treat effects versus the joint causal effects estimated by the nested g-formula can lead to markedly different conclusions regarding differential costs. Therefore, it is essential to prespecify the desired target of inference when choosing between these two frameworks. The nested g-formula should be considered as a useful, complementary tool to existing methods when analyzing cost outcomes.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationEconomics, MedicalData Interpretation, StatisticalHealth Care CostsHumansModels, StatisticalPublic PolicyTime Factorscausal inferenceconfoundingg-computationobservational studiestime-varying treatment

Identifiers

PMID29663579
PMCPMC8218600

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.