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.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Propensity score weighting analysis with complex survey data for estimating population-level treatment effects on survival: a simulation study.Health services & outcomes research methodology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
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
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.