Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37018228›Full record

ArticleBiometrics2023

Conditional cross-design synthesis estimators for generalizability in Medicaid.

Irina Degtiar, Tim Layton, Jacob Wallace, Sherri Rose

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biometrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Causal Inference Methods for Combining Randomized Trials and Observational Studies: A Review.Statistical science : a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics · 2024
    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.

Irina DegtiarMathematica, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6056-2262
Tim LaytonDepartment of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Jacob WallaceDepartment of Health Policy & Management, Yale School of Public Health New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Sherri RoseCenter for Health Policy and Department of Health Policy, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9076-8472

Funding

GRADUATE TRAINING IN BIOSTATISTICST32ES007142 · NIEHS · HARVARD UNIVERSITY (SCH OF PUBLIC HLTH) · PI Brent Andrew Coull · 1985 to 2026
$11.9M
Machine Learning for Health Outcomes and Quality of Care in Low-Income PopulationsDP2MD012722 · NIMHD · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI ROSE, SHERRI · 2017 to 2017
$2.5M
Statistical and Quantitative Training in Big Data Health ScienceT32LM012411 · NLM · HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI QUACKENBUSH, JOHN · 2016 to 2020
$1.4M
NIH HHS DP2MD012722NIH HHS T32ES07142NIH HHS T32LM012411NIMHD NIH HHS DP2 MD012722
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While much of the causal inference literature has focused on addressing internal validity biases, both internal and external validity are necessary for unbiased estimates in a target population of interest. However, few generalizability approaches exist for estimating causal quantities in a target population that is not well-represented by a randomized study but is reflected when additionally incorporating observational data. To generalize to a target population represented by a union of these data, we propose a novel class of conditional cross-design synthesis estimators that combine randomized and observational data, while addressing their estimates' respective biases-lack of overlap and unmeasured confounding. These methods enable estimating the causal effect of managed care plans on health care spending among Medicaid beneficiaries in New York City, which requires obtaining estimates for the 7% of beneficiaries randomized to a plan and 93% who choose a plan, who do not resemble randomized beneficiaries. Our new estimators include outcome regression, propensity weighting, and double robust approaches. All use the covariate overlap between the randomized and observational data to remove potential unmeasured confounding bias. Applying these methods, we find substantial heterogeneity in spending effects across managed care plans. This has major implications for our understanding of Medicaid, where this heterogeneity has previously been hidden. Additionally, we demonstrate that unmeasured confounding rather than lack of overlap poses a larger concern in this setting.

Indexed as

MedicaidModels, StatisticalBiasCausalityConfounding Factors, EpidemiologicHumansObservational Studies as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUnited Statescausal inferenceexternal validityselection biastransportabilityunmeasured confounding

Identifiers

PMID37018228
PMCPMC13189650

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.