A comparison of time-varying propensity score vs sequential stratification approaches to longitudinal matching with a time-varying treatment.

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Morgan Richey, Matthew L Maciejewski, Lindsay Zepel, David Arterburn, Aniket Kawatkar, Caroline E Sloan, Valerie A Smith
{"title":"A comparison of time-varying propensity score vs sequential stratification approaches to longitudinal matching with a time-varying treatment.","authors":"Morgan Richey, Matthew L Maciejewski, Lindsay Zepel, David Arterburn, Aniket Kawatkar, Caroline E Sloan, Valerie A Smith","doi":"10.1186/s12874-024-02391-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Methods for matching in longitudinal cohort studies, such as sequential stratification and time-varying propensity scores, facilitate causal inferences in the context of time-dependent treatments that are not randomized where patient eligibility or treatment status changes over time. The tradeoffs in available approaches have not been compared previously, so we compare two methods using simulations based on a retrospective cohort of patients eligible for weight loss surgery, some of whom received it.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study compares matching completeness, bias, coverage, and precision among three approaches to longitudinal matching: (1) time-varying propensity scores (tvPS), (2) sequential stratification that matches exactly on all covariates used in tvPS (SS-Full) and (3) sequential stratification that exact matches on a subset of covariates (SS-Selected). These comparisons are made in the context of a deep sampling frame (50:1) and a shallow sampling frame (5:1) of eligible comparators. A simulation study was employed to estimate the relative performance of these approaches.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In 1,000 simulations each, tvPS retained more than 99.9% of treated patients in both the deep and shallow sampling frames, while a smaller proportion of treated patients were retained for SS-Full (91.6%) and SS-Selected (98.2%) in the deep sampling frame. In the shallow sampling frame, sequential stratification retained many fewer treated patients (73.9% SS-Full, 92.0% SS-Selected) than tvPS yet coverage, precision and bias were comparable for tvPS, SS-Full and SS-Selected in the deep and shallow sampling frames.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Time-varying propensity scores have comparable performance to sequential stratification in terms of coverage, bias, and precision, with superior match completeness. While performance was generally comparable across methods, greater match completeness makes tvPS an attractive option for longitudinal matching studies where external validity is highly valued.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":"24 1","pages":"280"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11562661/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02391-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Methods for matching in longitudinal cohort studies, such as sequential stratification and time-varying propensity scores, facilitate causal inferences in the context of time-dependent treatments that are not randomized where patient eligibility or treatment status changes over time. The tradeoffs in available approaches have not been compared previously, so we compare two methods using simulations based on a retrospective cohort of patients eligible for weight loss surgery, some of whom received it.

Methods: This study compares matching completeness, bias, coverage, and precision among three approaches to longitudinal matching: (1) time-varying propensity scores (tvPS), (2) sequential stratification that matches exactly on all covariates used in tvPS (SS-Full) and (3) sequential stratification that exact matches on a subset of covariates (SS-Selected). These comparisons are made in the context of a deep sampling frame (50:1) and a shallow sampling frame (5:1) of eligible comparators. A simulation study was employed to estimate the relative performance of these approaches.

Results: In 1,000 simulations each, tvPS retained more than 99.9% of treated patients in both the deep and shallow sampling frames, while a smaller proportion of treated patients were retained for SS-Full (91.6%) and SS-Selected (98.2%) in the deep sampling frame. In the shallow sampling frame, sequential stratification retained many fewer treated patients (73.9% SS-Full, 92.0% SS-Selected) than tvPS yet coverage, precision and bias were comparable for tvPS, SS-Full and SS-Selected in the deep and shallow sampling frames.

Conclusion: Time-varying propensity scores have comparable performance to sequential stratification in terms of coverage, bias, and precision, with superior match completeness. While performance was generally comparable across methods, greater match completeness makes tvPS an attractive option for longitudinal matching studies where external validity is highly valued.

时变倾向得分与时变治疗纵向匹配顺序分层法的比较。
背景:纵向队列研究中的匹配方法(如顺序分层和时变倾向分数)有助于在非随机治疗的情况下进行因果推断,因为患者的治疗资格或治疗状态会随时间发生变化。以前从未比较过现有方法的利弊,因此我们使用基于符合减肥手术条件的患者回顾性队列的模拟,对两种方法进行了比较,其中一些患者接受了减肥手术:本研究比较了三种纵向匹配方法的匹配完整性、偏差、覆盖率和精确度:(1)时变倾向评分(tvPS);(2)与 tvPS 中使用的所有协变量完全匹配的序列分层(SS-Full);(3)与协变量子集完全匹配的序列分层(SS-Selected)。这些比较是在符合条件的比较对象的深度抽样框架(50:1)和浅度抽样框架(5:1)中进行的。我们采用了模拟研究来估算这些方法的相对性能:在1000次模拟中,tvPS在深度和浅度抽样框架中均保留了99.9%以上的治疗患者,而在深度抽样框架中,SS-Full(91.6%)和SS-Selected(98.2%)保留的治疗患者比例较小。在浅层抽样框架中,顺序分层法保留的治疗患者(73.9% SS-Full,92.0% SS-Selected)比 tvPS 少很多,但在深层和浅层抽样框架中,tvPS、SS-Full 和 SS-Selected 的覆盖率、精确度和偏差相当:在覆盖率、偏差和精确度方面,时变倾向得分与顺序分层的性能相当,但匹配的完整性更好。虽然各种方法的性能大体相当,但更高的匹配完整性使倾向评分成为非常重视外部效度的纵向匹配研究的一个有吸引力的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Medical Research Methodology
BMC Medical Research Methodology 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.50%
发文量
298
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Research Methodology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in methodological approaches to healthcare research. Articles on the methodology of epidemiological research, clinical trials and meta-analysis/systematic review are particularly encouraged, as are empirical studies of the associations between choice of methodology and study outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology does not aim to publish articles describing scientific methods or techniques: these should be directed to the BMC journal covering the relevant biomedical subject area.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信