Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35410545›Full record

ArticleStatistical methods in medical research2022

Sensitivity analysis for calibrated inverse probability-of-censoring weighted estimators under non-ignorable dropout.

Li Su, Shaun R Seaman, Sean Yiu

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistical methods in medical research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Li SuMRC Biostatistics Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, 12204University of Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0919-3462
Shaun R SeamanMRC Biostatistics Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, 12204University of Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3726-5937
Sean YiuMRC Biostatistics Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, 12204University of Cambridge, UK.
University of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/10Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/15Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/8
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Inverse probability of censoring weighting is a popular approach to handling dropout in longitudinal studies. However, inverse probability-of-censoring weighted estimators (IPCWEs) can be inefficient and unstable if the weights are estimated by maximum likelihood. To alleviate these problems, calibrated IPCWEs have been proposed, which use calibrated weights that directly optimize covariate balance in finite samples rather than the weights from maximum likelihood. However, the existing calibrated IPCWEs are all based on the unverifiable assumption of sequential ignorability and sensitivity analysis strategies under non-ignorable dropout are lacking. In this paper, we fill this gap by developing an approach to sensitivity analysis for calibrated IPCWEs under non-ignorable dropout. A simple technique is proposed to speed up the computation of bootstrap and jackknife confidence intervals and thus facilitate sensitivity analyses. We evaluate the finite-sample performance of the proposed methods using simulations and apply our methods to data from an international inception cohort study of systemic lupus erythematosus. An R Markdown tutorial to demonstrate the implementation of the proposed methods is provided.

Indexed as

Cohort StudiesComputer SimulationHumansLongitudinal StudiesProbabilityCovariate balancinginformative dropoutinverse probability weightinglongitudinal datamissing not at random

Identifiers

PMID35410545
PMCPMC9253927
OpenAlexW4223440830

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.