The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Variance reduction in randomised trials by inverse probability weighting using the propensity score
Open accessAbstract
In individually randomised controlled trials, adjustment for baseline characteristics is often undertaken to increase precision of the treatment effect estimate. This is usually performed using covariate adjustment in outcome regression models. An alternative method of adjustment is to use inverse probability‐of‐treatment weighting (IPTW), on the basis of estimated propensity scores. We calculate the large‐sample marginal variance of IPTW estimators of the mean difference for continuous outcomes, and risk difference, risk ratio or odds ratio for binary outcomes. We show that IPTW adjustment always increases the precision of the treatment effect estimate. For continuous outcomes, we demonstrate that the IPTW estimator has the same large‐sample marginal variance as the standard analysis of covariance estimator. However, ignoring the estimation of the propensity score in the calculation of the variance leads to the erroneous conclusion that the IPTW treatment effect estimator has the same variance as an unadjusted estimator; thus, it is important to use a variance estimator that correctly takes into account the estimation of the propensity score. The IPTW approach has particular advantages when estimating risk differences or risk ratios. In this case, non‐convergence of covariate‐adjusted outcome regression models frequently occurs. Such problems can be circumvented by using the IPTW adjustment approach. © 2013 The authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
McCaffrey, D. F., Ridgeway, G., & Morral, A. R. (2004) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.9.4.403 · Cited by 1,317
Cited by
Using simulation studies to evaluate statistical methods
Morris, T. P., White, I. R., & Crowther, M. J. (2019) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.8086 · Cited by 1,305
Self-citationAustin, P. C. (2016) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.7084 · Cited by 542
Daniel, R., Zhang, J., & Farewell, D. (2021) · Biometrical Journal · doi:10.1002/bimj.201900297 · Cited by 167
Planning a method for covariate adjustment in individually randomised trials: a practical guide
Morris, T. P., Walker, A. S., Williamson, E. J., & White, I. R. (2022) · Trials · doi:10.1186/s13063-022-06097-z · Cited by 97
Self-citationClark, R. K., Stampas, A., Kerr, K. W., Nelson, J. L., Sulo, S., Leon‐Novelo, L., Ngan, E., & Pandya, D. (2023) · International Wound Journal · doi:10.1111/iwj.13849 · Cited by 24
Metadata
- Authors
- Williamson, E. J., Forbes, A., & White, I. R.
- Venue
- Statistics in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-09-30
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 721-737
- ISSN
- 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0258
- OpenAlex
- W2108361697
- Cited by
- 172
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 6.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.