Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38530199›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2024

Estimating generalized propensity scores with survey and attrition weighted data.

Daniel F McCaffrey, Beth Ann Griffin, Michael Robbins, Yajnaseni Chakraborti, Donna L Coffman, Brian Vegetabile

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Sampling weighting strategies in causal mediation analysis.BMC medical research methodology · 2024
    Article
  4. 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

6 authors.

Daniel F McCaffreyResearch, ETS, Princeton, New Jersey.ORCID 0000-0003-1196-5273
Beth Ann GriffinRAND, Arlingon, VA.ORCID 0000-0002-2391-4601
Michael RobbinsRAND, Pittsburgh, PA.ORCID 0000-0003-4972-1733
Yajnaseni ChakrabortiDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.ORCID 0000-0002-6747-8821
Donna L CoffmanDepartment of Psychology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.
Brian VegetabileRAND, Santa Monica, CA, USA.

Funding

Improving Causal Inference Tools for Addiction ResearchersR01DA045049 · NIDA · RAND CORPORATION · PI GRIFFIN, BETH ANN, MCCAFFREY, DANIEL F · 2018 to 2020
$2.4M
Data Fusion for Predicting Long-term Program ImpactsR21AG058123 · NIA · RAND CORPORATION · PI ROBBINS, MICHAEL · 2018 to 2019
$381k
NIA NIH HHS R21 AG058123NIA NIH HHS R21AG058123NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA045049NIDA NIH HHS R01DA045049
6 · The paper itself

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

Computer SimulationPropensity ScoreBiasData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansModels, Statisticalattrition weightsgeneralized propensity scoresampling weightssurvey weights

Identifiers

PMID38530199
PMCPMC11102327

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.