ArticleBiometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift2019
K-Sample comparisons using propensity analysis.
Article in Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this paper, we investigate K-group comparisons on survival endpoints for observational studies. In clinical databases for observational studies, treatment for patients are chosen with probabilities varying depending on their baseline characteristics. This often results in noncomparable treatment groups because of imbalance in baseline characteristics of patients among treatment groups. In order to overcome this issue, we conduct propensity analysis and match the subjects with similar propensity scores across treatment groups or compare weighted group means (or weighted survival curves for censored outcome variables) using the inverse probability weighting (IPW). To this end, multinomial logistic regression has been a popular propensity analysis method to estimate the weights. We propose to use decision tree method as an alternative propensity analysis due to its simplicity and robustness. We also propose IPW rank statistics, called Dunnett-type test and ANOVA-type test, to compare 3 or more treatment groups on survival endpoints. Using simulations, we evaluate the finite sample performance of the weighted rank statistics combined with these propensity analysis methods. We demonstrate these methods with a real data example. The IPW method also allows us for unbiased estimation of population parameters of each treatment group. In this paper, we limit our discussions to survival outcomes, but all the methods can be easily modified for any type of outcomes, such as binary or continuous variables.
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.