ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026
Multiply-robust estimator of cumulative incidence function difference for right-censored competing risks data.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn causal inference, estimating the average treatment effects (ATE) for competing risk outcomes requires robust adjustment for confounding and specialized methods to handle competing events. Although doubly robust estimators offer protection against single-model misspecification, they become inconsistent if both the propensity score and outcome regression models are misspecified. To enhance reliability in observational studies, there is a critical need for methods that accommodate multiple candidate models, providing stronger protection against model misspecification in complex competing risks settings.
methodsWe propose a new multiply robust (MR) estimator for the difference in cause-specific cumulative incidence function (CIF) with right-censored competing risks data to estimate ATE in competing risks data. The proposed framework integrates the pseudo-value approach, which transforms the censored, time-dependent CIF into a complete-data outcome, with the multiply robust estimation framework. This framework not only avoids reliance on the proportional hazards assumption and effectively addresses right censoring, but also enhances the robustness of the estimation. By specifying multiple candidate models for both the propensity score and the outcome regression, the resulting estimator is consistent and asymptotically unbiased, provided that at least one of the multiple propensity score or outcome regression models is correctly specified.
resultsMonte Carlo simulations demonstrated that the proposed MR estimator maintains negligible bias and near-nominal 95% coverage probabilities, provided at least one candidate model is correctly specified. This robust performance was consistent across all investigated censoring rates. Notably, combinations featuring heterogeneous misspecifications exhibited superior performance compared to those with homogeneous error. Application to the Right Heart Catheterization dataset yielded treatment effect estimates consistent with existing literature, confirming the practical utility and reliability of the method in real-world observational studies.
conclusionsThe multiply robust framework ensures superior robustness and consistency for estimating cause-specific CIFs, even under high censoring. This methodology offers a more resilient alternative to traditional estimators, providing researchers with a dependable solution for treatment effect estimation in the presence of competing events and complex confounding.
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.