Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41437951›Full record

ArticleJournal of survey statistics and methodology2025

COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF PROPENSITY SCORE ESTIMATION METHODS FOR INVERSE PROBABILITY OF TREATMENT WEIGHTING ANALYSIS WITH COMPLEX SURVEY DATA: A SIMULATION STUDY.

Lihua Li, Chen Yang, Liangyuan Hu, Wei Zhang, Melissa Aldridge, Bian Liu, Madhu Mazumdar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of survey statistics and methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Lihua LiDepartment of Population Health Science and Policy, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA; Institute for Health Care Delivery Science, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA; Brookdale Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3154-9576
Chen YangDepartment of Population Health Science and Policy, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA; Institute for Health Care Delivery Science, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Liangyuan HuDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Rutgers University, Piscataway NJ, USA.
Wei ZhangDepartment of Population Health Science and Policy, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA; Institute for Health Care Delivery Science, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Melissa AldridgeBrookdale Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3334-4542
Bian LiuDepartment of Population Health Science and Policy, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9166-693X
Madhu MazumdarDepartment of Population Health Science and Policy, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA; Institute for Health Care Delivery Science, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA; Tisch Cancer Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3965-5146

Funding

Residing in the Community with Dementia at the End of Life: Understanding Hospice Use and Residential SettingP30AG028741 · NIA · ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI · PI ALBERT L SIU · 2010 to 2026
$21.9M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG028741
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Propensity score (PS) methods, including inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis, are increasingly applied to complex survey data in geriatric studies to infer causal effects. However, the comparative effectiveness of various PS estimation methods, particularly novel machine learning algorithms, has not been thoroughly explored when complex survey data are involved. We conducted a comprehensive simulation study to compare the following six PS estimation methods in IPTW analysis: Logistic Regression, Covariate Balancing Propensity Score, Generalized Boosted Model, Classification and Regression Tree, Random Forest (RF), and Super Learner. We considered 12 scenarios with varying treatment effects, degrees of non-linearity and non-additivity in the associations between covariates and the exposure, and levels of PS overlap. The performance of these six methods was assessed in terms of mean relative bias, root mean square error, and coverage probability. The results showed a similar performance across all methods when PS overlap was strong. However, RF consistently outperformed the other methods when PS overlap was not strong and under non-additive and non-linear scenarios. The results suggest RF to be a more effective approach for PS estimation than the other proposed methods when applying IPTW analysis to complex survey data for population average treatment effects. The methods were applied to data from the Medicare Beneficiary Current Survey for years 2002-2019 to estimate the impact of hospice use on end-of-life healthcare costs. Findings from the real-world example show that hospice use was significantly associated with reduced end-of-life healthcare costs of Medicare Beneficiaries.

Indexed as

Aging ResearchComplex Survey DataInverse Probability of Treatment Weighing (IPTW)Machine Learning MethodsPopulation Average Treatment Effect (PATE)

Identifiers

PMID41437951
PMCPMC12721855

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.