ArticleAnnals of epidemiology2022
Leveraging auxiliary data to improve precision in inverse probability-weighted analyses.
Article in Annals of epidemiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association Between Serum Levels of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances and Dental Floss Use: The Double-Edged Sword of Dental Floss Use-A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of clinical periodontology · 2025Article
- Joint effects of substance use disorders and recent substance use on HIV viral non-suppression among people engaged in HIV care in an urban clinic, 2014-2019.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2023Article
- Accounting for nonmonotone missing data using inverse probability weighting.Statistics in medicine · 2023Observational
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
purposeTo demonstrate improvements in the precision of inverse probability-weighted estimators by use of auxiliary variables, i.e., determinants of the outcome that are independent of treatment, missingness or selection.
methodsFirst with simulated data, and then with public data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), we estimated the mean of a continuous outcome using inverse probability weights to account for informative missingness. We assessed gains in precision resulting from the inclusion of auxiliary variables in the model for the weights. We compared the performance of robust and nonparametric bootstrap variance estimators in this setting.
resultsWe found that the inclusion of auxiliary variables reduced the empirical variance of inverse probability-weighted estimators. However, that reduction was not captured in standard errors computed using the robust variance estimator, which is widely used in weighted analyses due to the non-independence of weighted observations. In contrast, a nonparametric bootstrap estimator properly captured the precision gain.
conclusionsEpidemiologists can leverage auxiliary data to improve the precision of weighted estimators by using bootstrap variance estimation, or a closed-form variance estimator that properly accounts for the estimation of the weights, in place of the standard robust variance estimator.
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.