Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31145432›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2019

Diagnosing Covariate Balance Across Levels of Right-Censoring Before and After Application of Inverse-Probability-of-Censoring Weights.

John W Jackson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2019. 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

1 author.

John W JacksonDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.

Funding

Harvard Clinical and Translational Science CenterUL1TR001102 · NCATS · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI NADLER, LEE MARSHALL · 2013 to 2017
$106.2M
Systems Science for Translational Health Disparities ResearchK01HL145320 · NHLBI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI JACKSON, JOHN WILLIAM · 2019 to 2023
$832k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001102NHLBI NIH HHS K01 HL145320NIMH NIH HHS L30 MH111012
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Covariate balance is a central concept in the potential outcomes literature. With selected populations or missing data, balance across treatment groups can be insufficient for estimating marginal treatment effects. Recently, a framework for using covariate balance to describe measured confounding and selection bias for time-varying and other multivariate exposures in the presence of right-censoring has been proposed. Here, we revisit this framework to consider balance across levels of right-censoring over time in more depth. Specifically, we develop measures of covariate balance that can describe what is known as "dependent censoring" in the literature, along with its associated selection bias, under multiple mechanisms for right censoring. Such measures are interesting because they substantively describe the evolution of dependent censoring mechanisms. Furthermore, we provide weighted versions that can depict how well such dependent censoring has been eliminated when inverse-probability-of-censoring weights are applied. These results provide a conceptually grounded way to inspect covariate balance across levels of right-censoring as a validity check. As a motivating example, we applied these measures to a study of hypothetical "static" and "dynamic" treatment protocols in a sequential multiple-assignment randomized trial of antipsychotics with high dropout rates.

Indexed as

EpidemiologyStatistics as TopicHumansSchizophreniaattritioncovariate balancedependent censoringinformative censoringinverse-probability-of-censoring weightsIPCWper-protocol effectselection bias

Identifiers

PMID31145432
PMCPMC7212402

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.