Cited by 542Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Variance estimation when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) with survival analysis

Open access
Austin, Peter C.·2016·Statistics in Medicine

Abstract

Propensity score methods are used to reduce the effects of observed confounding when using observational data to estimate the effects of treatments or exposures. A popular method of using the propensity score is inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). When using this method, a weight is calculated for each subject that is equal to the inverse of the probability of receiving the treatment that was actually received. These weights are then incorporated into the analyses to minimize the effects of observed confounding. Previous research has found that these methods result in unbiased estimation when estimating the effect of treatment on survival outcomes. However, conventional methods of variance estimation were shown to result in biased estimates of standard error. In this study, we conducted an extensive set of Monte Carlo simulations to examine different methods of variance estimation when using a weighted Cox proportional hazards model to estimate the effect of treatment. We considered three variance estimation methods: (i) a naïve model-based variance estimator; (ii) a robust sandwich-type variance estimator; and (iii) a bootstrap variance estimator. We considered estimation of both the average treatment effect and the average treatment effect in the treated. We found that the use of a bootstrap estimator resulted in approximately correct estimates of standard errors and confidence intervals with the correct coverage rates. The other estimators resulted in biased estimates of standard errors and confidence intervals with incorrect coverage rates. Our simulations were informed by a case study examining the effect of statin prescribing on mortality. © 2016 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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sim.7084

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The study used sIPTW-adjusted multivariable logistic regression to estimate the average treatment effect in the treated (ATT).

    “Using the sIPTW-adjusted MLR, we were able to estimate the average treatment effect in the treated (ATT) [26].”

    From Association between first-line antidepressant use and risk of dementia in older adults: a retrospective cohort study (2023) · cites this paper as [26]

    The section on propensity-score weighting says IPTW–ATT weights can estimate the ATT, and the Case study > Data and analyses section uses logistic regression to estimate propensity scores. But the paper assigns stabilized weights to the ATE, not the ATT, and estimates the treatment effect with a weighted Cox proportional hazards model—not multivariable logistic regression. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. 10.1093/biomet/70.1.41 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1080/00273171.2011.540480 · DOI
  3. 10.1080/00273171.2011.568786 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1002/pds.969 · DOI
  5. 10.1002/sim.3150 · DOI
  6. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.002 · DOI
  7. 10.1002/pst.537 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1002/sim.5705 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.3982/ECTA6474 · DOI
  10. 10.2202/1557‐4679.1146 · DOI
  11. 10.1002/sim.4200 · DOI
  12. 10.1002/sim.6276 · DOI
  13. 10.1002/sim.1903 · DOI
  14. 10.1002/sim.3782 · DOI
  15. 10.1002/pds.1555 · DOI
  16. 10.1002/sim.2580 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/j.cmpb.2003.10.004 · DOI
  18. 10.1093/aje/kwn164 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1111/j.1467-9531.2008.00204.x · DOI
  20. 10.1198/000313004X5824 · DOI
  21. 10.1080/01621459.1989.10478874 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.1097/00001648-200009000-00012 · DOI
  23. 10.18637/jss.v043.i13 · DOI
  24. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00671.x · DOI
  25. 10.1002/sim.5984 · DOI
  26. 10.1002/sim.2328 · DOI
  27. 10.1001/jama.2009.1731 · DOI
  28. 10.1007/978-1-4899-4541-9 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.1002/sim.2059 · DOI
  30. 10.1002/sim.2618 · DOI
  31. 10.1002/sim.6607 · DOI · Paper page
  32. 10.1002/sim.5991 · DOI
  33. 10.1016/j.csda.2013.10.018 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Austin, P. C.
Affiliations
University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Austin, Peter C.
Venue
Statistics in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-08-22
Volume
35
Issue
30
Pages
5642-5655
ISSN
  • 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0258
OpenAlex
W2511521172
Cited by
542
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 69 · 2024: 71 · 2023: 84 · 2022: 84 · 2021: 71 · 2020: 56 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 11
FWCI
17.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Statistics in Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Canadian HIV Trials Network, Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MOP 86508)
  • Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
inverse probability of treatment weighting, variance estimation, propensity score methods, average treatment effect, confidence interval coverage, statin prescribing, mortality
MeSH terms
Humans, Monte Carlo Method, Proportional Hazards Models, Survival Analysis, Propensity Score

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