ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024
A comparison of time-varying propensity score vs sequential stratification approaches to longitudinal matching with a time-varying treatment.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. 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.
- Statistical Methods to Adjust for Treatment Switching in Real-World Clinical Studies: A Scoping Review and Descriptive Comparison.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2025Article
- Post-stroke cognitive decline among women in midlife.Women's health (London, England)Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMethods for matching in longitudinal cohort studies, such as sequential stratification and time-varying propensity scores, facilitate causal inferences in the context of time-dependent treatments that are not randomized where patient eligibility or treatment status changes over time. The tradeoffs in available approaches have not been compared previously, so we compare two methods using simulations based on a retrospective cohort of patients eligible for weight loss surgery, some of whom received it.
methodsThis study compares matching completeness, bias, coverage, and precision among three approaches to longitudinal matching: (1) time-varying propensity scores (tvPS), (2) sequential stratification that matches exactly on all covariates used in tvPS (SS-Full) and (3) sequential stratification that exact matches on a subset of covariates (SS-Selected). These comparisons are made in the context of a deep sampling frame (50:1) and a shallow sampling frame (5:1) of eligible comparators. A simulation study was employed to estimate the relative performance of these approaches.
resultsIn 1,000 simulations each, tvPS retained more than 99.9% of treated patients in both the deep and shallow sampling frames, while a smaller proportion of treated patients were retained for SS-Full (91.6%) and SS-Selected (98.2%) in the deep sampling frame. In the shallow sampling frame, sequential stratification retained many fewer treated patients (73.9% SS-Full, 92.0% SS-Selected) than tvPS yet coverage, precision and bias were comparable for tvPS, SS-Full and SS-Selected in the deep and shallow sampling frames.
conclusionTime-varying propensity scores have comparable performance to sequential stratification in terms of coverage, bias, and precision, with superior match completeness. While performance was generally comparable across methods, greater match completeness makes tvPS an attractive option for longitudinal matching studies where external validity is highly valued.
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.