ArticleStatistics in medicine2020
Robust estimation of the causal effect of time-varying neighborhood factors on health outcomes.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- No Partner, No Children? Union Formation, Assortative Mating, and Educational Inequalities in Fertility in Germany.European journal of population = Revue europeenne de demographie · 2026Article
- Combined and mediating effects of remnant cholesterol and renal function on hypertension risk in Chinese middle-aged and elderly people.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
- Neighborhood built environment, obesity, and diabetes: A Utah siblings study.SSM - population health · 2024Article
- Estimating generalized propensity scores with survey and attrition weighted data.Statistics in medicine · 2024Article
- Nonparametric Estimation of Population Average Dose-Response Curves using Entropy Balancing Weights for Continuous Exposures.Health services & outcomes research methodology · 2021Article
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
The fundamental difficulty of establishing causal relationships between an exposure and an outcome in observational data involves disentangling causality from confounding factors. This problem underlies much of neighborhoods research, which abounds with studies that consider associations between neighborhood characteristics and health outcomes in longitudinal data. Such analyses are confounded by selection issues; individuals with above average health outcomes (or associated characteristics) may self-select into advantaged neighborhoods. Techniques commonly used to assess causal inferences in observational longitudinal data, such as inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), may be inappropriate in neighborhoods data due to unique characteristics of such data. We advance the IPTW toolkit by introducing a procedure based on a multivariate kernel density function which is more appropriate for neighborhoods data. The proposed weighting method is applied in conjunction with a marginal structural model. Our empirical analyses use longitudinal data from the Health and Retirement Study; our exposure of interest is an index of neighborhood socioeconomic status (NSES), and we examine its influence on cognitive function. Our findings illustrate the importance of the choice of method for IPTW-the comparison weighting methods provide poor balance across the set of covariates (which is not the case for our preferred procedure) and yield misleading results when applied in the outcomes models. The utility of the multivariate kernel is also validated via simulation. In addition, our findings emphasize the importance of IPTW-controlling for covariates within a regression without IPTW indicates that NSES affects cognition, whereas IPTW-weighted models fail to show a statistically significant effect.
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.