2021
DOI: 10.22237/jmasm/1608552120
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

How to Apply Multiple Imputation in Propensity Score Matching with Partially Observed Confounders: A Simulation Study and Practical Recommendations

Abstract: Propensity score matching (PSM) has been widely used to mitigate confounding in observational studies, although complications arise when the covariates used to estimate the PS are only partially observed. Multiple imputation (MI) is a potential solution for handling missing covariates in the estimation of the PS. However, it is not clear how to best apply MI strategies in the context of PSM. We conducted a simulation study to compare the performances of popular non-MI missing data methods and various MI-based … Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 90 publications
(119 reference statements)
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We conducted an analysis based on propensity scores in accordance with the methodology of Saito et al 22 Second, we conducted logistic regression using the covariates described above to estimate the probability of developing cancer based on the baseline variables in each imputed dataset. 23 Then, we used a pooled propensity score to match, with replacement, subjects with and without incident cancer in a 1:4 ratio. We established a calliper width of 0.25 of the propensity score's standard deviation (SD), resulting in a better balance of subjects with incident cancer and those without as matched samples (C-statistic = 0.67).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We conducted an analysis based on propensity scores in accordance with the methodology of Saito et al 22 Second, we conducted logistic regression using the covariates described above to estimate the probability of developing cancer based on the baseline variables in each imputed dataset. 23 Then, we used a pooled propensity score to match, with replacement, subjects with and without incident cancer in a 1:4 ratio. We established a calliper width of 0.25 of the propensity score's standard deviation (SD), resulting in a better balance of subjects with incident cancer and those without as matched samples (C-statistic = 0.67).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The analysis described above was separately performed in each of the imputed datasets. The resulting regression coefficients and test statistics were subsequently pooled across all imputed datasets [ 25 , 26 ].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Proportional hazards assumption was tested using cox.zph() function in R. Multiple imputation (MI) was used to impute missing data. Specifically, MI-derPassive (missing PS variables were imputed before PS was derived) INT-within (IPTW was carried out within each imputed datasets) were implemented [ 33 – 35 ].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Only potential effect modifiers were used to estimate the weights for the Cox model. Similarly to the IPTW analysis described in Section 2.2.4, MI-derPassive INT-within was used to impute missing data [ 33 , 34 ]. Specifically, covariates from both original and target cohorts, treatment and outcome variables from the original cohort were included in the imputation model [ 35 ].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%