ArticleHealth services & outcomes research methodology2025
Propensity score weighting analysis with complex survey data for estimating population-level treatment effects on survival: a simulation study.
Article in Health services & outcomes research methodology, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Propensity score weighting (PSW) is a valuable tool for estimating treatment effects on survival outcomes in observational studies. However, there is no clear best practice for applying PSW to complex survey data with survival outcomes. This paper addresses this gap by exploring how to integrate PSW into complex survey with design features (strata, clusters, sampling weights) for unbiased population-level estimates. We evaluate three PSW methods where: Method I: neither the propensity score (PS) model nor the outcome model accounts for the survey design; Method II: the PS model does not account for the survey design, but the outcome model does; Method III: both the PS model and outcome model account for the survey design. Through extensive simulations, we compare performance in estimating absolute treatment effects measured by population survival quantile effects and relative treatment effects measured by population marginal hazard ratios. Mean relative bias, mean absolute bias and coverage probability are estimated for model evaluations under various scenarios, including varying treatment effect magnitude, censoring type and rate, level of PS overlap, presence of outliers and nonresponse. Findings reveal that both survey-weighted Methods II and III outperform the unweighted Method I under most scenarios for both measures of treatment effects, especially when there is a true treatment effect. Both weighted methods II and III are found to perform closely, including when there exists informative censoring, influential outliers, or non-response. We recommend that when considering PSW with complex survey data for estimating population-level treatment effects on survival outcomes, both modelling stages should incorporate survey designs, but it is most critical for the outcome modelling. For illustration, all methods are applied to the public-use 2000-2018 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) Linked to Mortality Files with mortality information through 2019 to estimate the effect of smoking cessation after a cancer diagnosis on subsequent overall survival.
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.