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 accessAbstract
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.
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.
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
McCaffrey, D. F., Ridgeway, G., & Morral, A. R. (2004) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.9.4.403 · Cited by 1,317
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 33
- 10.1093/biomet/70.1.41 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/00273171.2011.540480 · DOI
- 10.1080/00273171.2011.568786 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/pds.969 · DOI
- 10.1002/sim.3150 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.002 · DOI
- 10.1002/pst.537 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/sim.5705 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3982/ECTA6474 · DOI
- 10.2202/1557‐4679.1146 · DOI
- 10.1002/sim.4200 · DOI
- 10.1002/sim.6276 · DOI
- 10.1002/sim.1903 · DOI
- 10.1002/sim.3782 · DOI
- 10.1002/pds.1555 · DOI
- 10.1002/sim.2580 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.cmpb.2003.10.004 · DOI
- 10.1093/aje/kwn164 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1467-9531.2008.00204.x · DOI
- 10.1198/000313004X5824 · DOI
- 10.1080/01621459.1989.10478874 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1097/00001648-200009000-00012 · DOI
- 10.18637/jss.v043.i13 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00671.x · DOI
- 10.1002/sim.5984 · DOI
- 10.1002/sim.2328 · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.2009.1731 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-1-4899-4541-9 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/sim.2059 · DOI
- 10.1002/sim.2618 · DOI
- 10.1002/sim.6607 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/sim.5991 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.csda.2013.10.018 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Brown, H. K., Ray, J. G., Wilton, A. S., Lunsky, Y., Gomes, T., & Vigod, S. N. (2017) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2017.3415 · Cited by 143
Primary care continuity and potentially avoidable hospitalization in persons with dementia
Godard‐Sebillotte, C., Strumpf, E., Sourial, N., Rochette, L., Pelletier, E., & Vedel, I. (2021) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/jgs.17049 · Cited by 50
Quinn, P. D., Fine, K. L., Rickert, M. E., Sujan, A. C., Boersma, K., Chang, Z., Franck, J., Lichtenstein, P., Larsson, H., & D’Onofrio, B. M. (2020) · JAMA Pediatrics · doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.2539 · Cited by 38
SGLT2 Inhibitors and Risk for Hyperkalemia Among Individuals Receiving RAAS Inhibitors
Wing, S., Ray, J. G., Yau, K., Jeyakumar, N., Abdullah, S., Luo, B., Cherney, D. Z. I., Harel, Z., Hundemer, G. L., Mavrakanas, T. A., et al. (2025) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2025.0686 · Cited by 29
Effectiveness of Empagliflozin vs Dapagliflozin for Kidney Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes
Bonnesen, K., Heide-Jørgensen, U., Christensen, D. H., Christiansen, C. F., Lash, T. L., Hennessy, S., Matthews, A. A., Pedersen, L., Thomsen, R. W., & Schmidt, M. (2025) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.7381 · Cited by 17
Wang, G. H.-M., Chen, W.-H., Chang, S.-H., Zhang, T., Shao, H., Guo, J., & Lo-Ciganic, W.-H. (2023) · BMC Geriatrics · doi:10.1186/s12877-023-04475-z · Cited by 13
Metadata
- Authors
- Austin, P. C.
- Affiliations
- University of Toronto (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Austin, Peter C.
- ORCID
- 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
- PMC
- PMC5157758
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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