多重归因后倾向得分分析中的平衡诊断:一种新方法

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Pharmaceutical Statistics Pub Date : 2024-04-06 DOI:10.1002/pst.2389
Sevinc Puren Yucel Karakaya, Ilker Unal
{"title":"多重归因后倾向得分分析中的平衡诊断:一种新方法","authors":"Sevinc Puren Yucel Karakaya, Ilker Unal","doi":"10.1002/pst.2389","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The combination of propensity score analysis and multiple imputation has been prominent in epidemiological research in recent years. However, studies on the evaluation of balance in this combination are limited. In this paper, we propose a new method for assessing balance in propensity score analysis following multiple imputation. A simulation study was conducted to evaluate the performance of balance assessment methods (Leyrat's, Leite's, and new method). Simulated scenarios varied regarding the presence of missing data in the control or treatment and control group, and the imputation model with/without outcome. Leyrat's method was more biased in all the studied scenarios. Leite's method and the combine method yielded balanced results with lower mean absolute difference, regardless of whether the outcome was included in the imputation model or not. Leyrat's method had a higher false positive ratio and Leite's and combine method had higher specificity and accuracy, especially when the outcome was not included in the imputation model. According to simulation results, most of time, Leyrat's method and Leite's method contradict with each other on appraising the balance. This discrepancy can be solved using new combine method.","PeriodicalId":19934,"journal":{"name":"Pharmaceutical Statistics","volume":"241 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Balance diagnostics in propensity score analysis following multiple imputation: A new method\",\"authors\":\"Sevinc Puren Yucel Karakaya, Ilker Unal\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/pst.2389\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The combination of propensity score analysis and multiple imputation has been prominent in epidemiological research in recent years. However, studies on the evaluation of balance in this combination are limited. In this paper, we propose a new method for assessing balance in propensity score analysis following multiple imputation. A simulation study was conducted to evaluate the performance of balance assessment methods (Leyrat's, Leite's, and new method). Simulated scenarios varied regarding the presence of missing data in the control or treatment and control group, and the imputation model with/without outcome. Leyrat's method was more biased in all the studied scenarios. Leite's method and the combine method yielded balanced results with lower mean absolute difference, regardless of whether the outcome was included in the imputation model or not. Leyrat's method had a higher false positive ratio and Leite's and combine method had higher specificity and accuracy, especially when the outcome was not included in the imputation model. According to simulation results, most of time, Leyrat's method and Leite's method contradict with each other on appraising the balance. This discrepancy can be solved using new combine method.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19934,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pharmaceutical Statistics\",\"volume\":\"241 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pharmaceutical Statistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.2389\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmaceutical Statistics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.2389","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

近年来,倾向得分分析与多重估算的结合在流行病学研究中十分突出。然而,对这种组合的平衡性评估研究却很有限。在本文中,我们提出了一种在多重归因后评估倾向评分分析平衡性的新方法。我们进行了一项模拟研究,以评估平衡评估方法(Leyrat's、Leite's 和新方法)的性能。模拟情景因对照组或治疗组和对照组是否存在缺失数据以及有/无结果的估算模型而异。在所有研究场景中,Leyrat 方法的偏差更大。无论结果是否包含在估算模型中,莱特法和合并法的结果都比较均衡,平均绝对差值较低。Leyrat 方法的假阳性率较高,而 Leite 方法和组合方法的特异性和准确性较高,尤其是当结果未纳入估算模型时。根据模拟结果,在大多数情况下,Leyrat 方法和 Leite 方法在评估平衡方面相互矛盾。这种矛盾可以通过新的组合方法来解决。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Balance diagnostics in propensity score analysis following multiple imputation: A new method
The combination of propensity score analysis and multiple imputation has been prominent in epidemiological research in recent years. However, studies on the evaluation of balance in this combination are limited. In this paper, we propose a new method for assessing balance in propensity score analysis following multiple imputation. A simulation study was conducted to evaluate the performance of balance assessment methods (Leyrat's, Leite's, and new method). Simulated scenarios varied regarding the presence of missing data in the control or treatment and control group, and the imputation model with/without outcome. Leyrat's method was more biased in all the studied scenarios. Leite's method and the combine method yielded balanced results with lower mean absolute difference, regardless of whether the outcome was included in the imputation model or not. Leyrat's method had a higher false positive ratio and Leite's and combine method had higher specificity and accuracy, especially when the outcome was not included in the imputation model. According to simulation results, most of time, Leyrat's method and Leite's method contradict with each other on appraising the balance. This discrepancy can be solved using new combine method.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pharmaceutical Statistics
Pharmaceutical Statistics 医学-统计学与概率论
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
90
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Pharmaceutical Statistics is an industry-led initiative, tackling real problems in statistical applications. The Journal publishes papers that share experiences in the practical application of statistics within the pharmaceutical industry. It covers all aspects of pharmaceutical statistical applications from discovery, through pre-clinical development, clinical development, post-marketing surveillance, consumer health, production, epidemiology, and health economics. The Journal is both international and multidisciplinary. It includes high quality practical papers, case studies and review papers.
期刊最新文献
Beyond the Fragility Index. A Model-Based Trial Design With a Randomization Scheme Considering Pharmacokinetics Exposure for Dose Optimization in Oncology. Potential Bias Models With Bayesian Shrinkage Priors for Dynamic Borrowing of Multiple Historical Control Data. Subgroup Identification Based on Quantitative Objectives. A Bayesian Dynamic Model-Based Adaptive Design for Oncology Dose Optimization in Phase I/II Clinical Trials.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1