ArticleStatistical methods in medical research2024
The performance of marginal structural models for estimating risk differences and relative risks using weighted univariate generalized linear models.
Article in Statistical methods in medical research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We used Monte Carlo simulations to compare the performance of marginal structural models (MSMs) based on weighted univariate generalized linear models (GLMs) to estimate risk differences and relative risks for binary outcomes in observational studies. We considered four different sets of weights based on the propensity score: inverse probability of treatment weights with the average treatment effect as the target estimand, weights for estimating the average treatment effect in the treated, matching weights and overlap weights. We considered sample sizes ranging from 500 to 10,000 and allowed the prevalence of treatment to range from 0.1 to 0.9. We examined both the robust variance estimator when using generalized estimating equations with an independent working correlation matrix and a bootstrap variance estimator for estimating the standard error of the risk difference and the log-relative risk. The performance of these methods was compared with that of direct weighting. Both the direct weighting approach and MSMs based on weighted univariate GLMs resulted in the identical estimates of risk differences and relative risks. When sample sizes were small to moderate, the use of an MSM with a bootstrap variance estimator tended to result in the most accurate estimates of standard errors. When sample sizes were large, the direct weighting approach and an MSM with a bootstrap variance estimator tended to produce estimates of standard error with similar accuracy. When using a MSM to estimate risk differences and relative risks, in general it is preferable to use a bootstrap variance estimator than the robust variance estimator. We illustrate the application of the different methods for estimating risks differences and relative risks using an observational study on the effect on mortality of discharge prescribing of a beta-blocker in patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction.
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.