Estimating long-term treatment effects in observational data: A comparison of the performance of different methods under real-world uncertainty.


Newsome, SJ; Keogh, RH; Daniel, RM; (2018) Estimating long-term treatment effects in observational data: A comparison of the performance of different methods under real-world uncertainty. Statistics in medicine. ISSN 0277-6715 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.7664

[img]
Preview
Text - Published Version
License:

Download (5MB) | Preview

Abstract

In the presence of time-dependent confounding, there are several methods available to estimate treatment effects. With correctly specified models and appropriate structural assumptions, any of these methods could provide consistent effect estimates, but with real-world data, all models will be misspecified and it is difficult to know if assumptions are violated. In this paper, we investigate five methods: inverse probability weighting of marginal structural models, history-adjusted marginal structural models, sequential conditional mean models, g-computation formula, and g-estimation of structural nested models. This work is motivated by an investigation of the effects of treatments in cystic fibrosis using the UK Cystic Fibrosis Registry data focussing on two outcomes: lung function (continuous outcome) and annual number of days receiving intravenous antibiotics (count outcome). We identified five features of this data that may affect the performance of the methods: misspecification of the causal null, long-term treatment effects, effect modification by time-varying covariates, misspecification of the direction of causal pathways, and censoring. In simulation studies, under ideal settings, all five methods provide consistent estimates of the treatment effect with little difference between methods. However, all methods performed poorly under some settings, highlighting the importance of using appropriate methods based on the data available. Furthermore, with the count outcome, the issue of non-collapsibility makes comparison between methods delivering marginal and conditional effects difficult. In many situations, we would recommend using more than one of the available methods for analysis, as if the effect estimates are very different, this would indicate potential issues with the analyses.

Item Type: Article
Faculty and Department: Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health > Dept of Medical Statistics
Research Centre: Centre for Statistical Methodology
PubMed ID: 29671915
URI: http://researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk/id/eprint/4647447

Statistics


Download activity - last 12 months
Downloads since deposit
4Downloads
14Hits
Accesses by country - last 12 months
Accesses by referrer - last 12 months
Impact and interest
Additional statistics for this record are available via IRStats2

Actions (login required)

Edit Item Edit Item