ArticleStatistics in medicine2024
Estimating generalized propensity scores with survey and attrition weighted data.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- What's the Weight? Estimating Controlled Outcome Differences in Complex Surveys for Health Disparities Research.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
- Addressing confounding and continuous exposure measurement error using corrected score functions.Biometrics · 2025Article
- Sampling weighting strategies in causal mediation analysis.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Robust estimation of the causal effect of time-varying neighborhood factors on health outcomes.Statistics in medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Prior work in causal inference has shown that using survey sampling weights in the propensity score estimation stage and the outcome model stage for binary treatments can result in a more robust estimator of the effect of the binary treatment being analyzed. However, to date, extending this work to continuous treatments and exposures has not been explored nor has consideration been given for how to handle attrition weights in the propensity score model. Nonetheless, generalized propensity score (GPS) analyses are being used for estimating continuous treatment effects on outcomes when researchers have observational data, and those data sets often have survey or attrition weights that need to be accounted for in the analysis. Here, we extend prior work and show with analytic results that using survey sampling or attrition weights in the GPS estimation stage and the outcome model stage for continuous treatments can result in a more robust estimator than one that does not. Simulation study results show that, although using weights in both estimation stages is sufficient for robust estimation, it is not necessary and unbiased estimation is possible in some cases under various approaches to using weights in estimation. Analysts do not know if the conditions of our simulation studies hold, so use of weights in both estimation stages might provide insurance for reducing potential bias. We discuss the implications of our results in the context of an empirical example.
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.