ArticleStatistics in medicine2025
A Tutorial for Propensity Score Weighting Methods Under Violations of the Positivity Assumption.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2025. 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.
- Explainable Prediction of Prolonged Work Disability After Occupational Injury and Disease: Temporal Validation and Sex-Specific Performance.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Negatives about positivity and consistency as conditions for causal inference.American journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Estimating causal effects of rare treatments on binary outcomes: addressing sample size requirements and bias correction.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- A Tutorial for Propensity Score Weighting Methods Under Violations of the Positivity Assumption.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Violations of the positivity assumption can render conventional causal estimands unidentifiable, including the average treatment effect (ATE), the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT), and the average treatment effect on the controls (ATC). Shifting the inferential focus to their alternative counterparts-the weighted ATE (WATE), the weighted ATT (WATT), and the weighted ATC (WATC)-offers valuable insights into treatment effects while preserving internal validity. In this tutorial, we provide a comprehensive review of recent advances in propensity score (PS) weighting methods, along with practical guidance on how to select a primary target estimand (while other estimands serve as supplementary analyses), implement the corresponding PS-weighted estimators, and conduct post-weighting diagnostic assessments. The tutorial is accompanied by a user-friendly R package, ChiPS. We demonstrate the pertinence of various estimators through extensive simulation studies. We illustrate the flow of the tutorial on two real-world case studies: (i) Effect of smoking on blood lead level using data from the 2007-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES); and (ii) Impact of history of sex work on HIV status among transgender women in South Africa.
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.