Considerations for using multiple imputation in propensity score-weighted analysis
Eiset, A. H.; Frydenberg, M.
Show abstract
We present our considerations for using multiple imputation to account for missing data in propensity score-weighted analysis with bootstrap percentile confidence interval. We outline the assumptions underlying each of the methods and discuss the methodological and practical implications of our choices and briefly point to alternatives. We made a number of choices a priori for example to use logistic regression-based propensity scores to produce "standardized mortality ratio"-weights and Substantive Model Compatible-Full Conditional Specification to multiply impute missing data (given no violation of underlying assumptions). We present a methodology to combine these methods by choosing the propensity score model based on covariate balance, using this model as the substantive model in the multiple imputation, producing and averaging the point estimates from each multiple imputed data set to give the estimate of association and computing the percentile confidence interval by bootstrapping. The described methodology is demanding in both work-load and in computational time, however, we do not consider the prior a draw-back: it makes some of the underlying assumptions explicit and the latter may be a nuisance that will diminish with faster computers and better implementations.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Time-to-event estimation of birth year prevalence trends: a method to enable investigating the etiology of childhood disorders including autism 94%
- A Model for Understanding the Causes and Consequences of Walking Impairments 93%
- Introducing riskCommunicator: an R package to obtain interpretable effect estimates for public health 93%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- External control arm analysis: an evaluation of propensity score approaches, G-computation, and doubly debiased machine learning 95%
- Impact of COVID-19 on Mental Health: A Longitudinal Study Using Penalized Logistic Regression 92%
- Quantitative bias analysis for mismeasured variables in health research: a review of software tools 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Double Machine Learning Approach for the Evaluation of COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness under the Test-Negative Design: Analysis of Québec Administrative Data 94%
- Sensitivity to missing not at random dropout in clinical trials: use and interpretation of the Trimmed Means Estimator 94%
- Logistic mixed-effects model analysis with pseudo-observations for estimating risk ratios in clustered binary data analysis 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Nonspecific blood tests as proxies for COVID-19 hospitalization: are there plausible associations after excluding noisy predictors? 93%
- Excess Mortality in the United States During the First Three Months of the COVID-19 Pandemic 91%
- Bias correction methods for test-negative designs in the presence of misclassification 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.