Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34536004›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of epidemiology2022

Reflection on modern methods: combining weights for confounding and missing data.

Rachael K Ross, Alexander Breskin, Tiffany L Breger, Daniel Westreich

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of epidemiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. 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

4 authors.

Rachael K RossDepartment of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, UNC-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2049-6918
Alexander BreskinDepartment of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, UNC-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5568-2510
Tiffany L BregerDepartment of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, UNC-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Daniel WestreichDepartment of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, UNC-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

Funding

Propensity scores and preventive drug use in the elderlyR01AG056479 · NIA · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Til Sturmer · 2017 to 2026
$5.0M
Training Program in Reproductive, Perinatal, and Pediatric EpidemiologyT32HD052468 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Julie L Daniels · 2008 to 2026
$3.8M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG056479NICHD NIH HHS T32 HD052468
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Inverse probability weights are increasingly used in epidemiological analysis, and estimation and application of weights to address a single bias are well discussed in the literature. Weights to address multiple biases simultaneously (i.e. a combination of weights) have almost exclusively been discussed related to marginal structural models in longitudinal settings where treatment weights (estimated first) are combined with censoring weights (estimated second). In this work, we examine two examples of combined weights for confounding and missingness in a time-fixed setting in which outcome or confounder data are missing, and the estimand is the marginal expectation of the outcome under a time-fixed treatment. We discuss the identification conditions, construction of combined weights and how assumptions of the missing data mechanisms affect this construction. We use a simulation to illustrate the estimation and application of the weights in the two examples. Notably, when only outcome data are missing, construction of combined weights is straightforward; however, when confounder data are missing, we show that in general we must follow a specific estimation procedure which entails first estimating missingness weights and then estimating treatment probabilities from data with missingness weights applied. However, if treatment and missingness are conditionally independent, then treatment probabilities can be estimated among the complete cases.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalBiasComputer SimulationHumansProbabilityconfoundingInverse probability weightsmissing data

Identifiers

PMID34536004
PMCPMC9082798

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.