ArticleClinical epidemiology2023
Effects of Adjusting for Instrumental Variables on the Bias and Precision of Propensity Score Weighted Estimators: Analysis Under Complete, Near, and No Positivity Violations.
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modeling Versus Balancing Approaches to Addressing Instrumental Variables in Weighting: A Comparison of the Outcome-Adaptive Lasso, Stable Balancing Weighting, and Stable Confounder Selection.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2025Article
- The causal effect of mental health on labor market outcomes: The case of stress-related mental disorders following a human-made disaster.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To demonstrate that using an instrumental variable (IV) with monotonicity reduces the accuracy of propensity score (PS) weighted estimators for the average treatment effect (ATE). Methods: Monotonicity in the relationship between a binary IV and a binary treatment variable is an important assumption to identify the ATE for compliers who would only take treatment when encouraged by the IV. We perform theoretical and numerical investigations to study the impact of using the IV that satisfies monotonicity on the PS of treatment in terms of the positivity assumption, which requires that the PS be strictly between 0 and 1, and the accuracy of PS weighted estimators. Two versions of monotonicity that result in one-sided or two-sided noncompliance are considered. Results: The PS adjusting for the IV always violates the positivity assumption when noncompliance occurs in one direction (one-sided noncompliance) and is more extreme than without the IV under two-sided noncompliance. These results are valid if the probability of being encouraged to get treatment and the compliance score, the probability of being a complier, are strictly between 0 and 1. Conclusion: Using a binary IV with monotonicity as a covariate for the PS model makes the estimated PSs unnecessarily extreme, reducing the accuracy of the PS weighted estimators.
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.