4.5 Article

Bayesian propensity score analysis for observational data

期刊

STATISTICS IN MEDICINE
卷 28, 期 1, 页码 94-112

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/sim.3460

关键词

confounding; bias; observational studies; causal inference; Bayesian statistics

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research Team
  2. Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario [NA 5703]
  3. British Columbia Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the analysis of observational data, stratifying patients on the estimated propensity scores reduces confounding from measured variables. Confidence intervals for the treatment effect are typically calculated without acknowledging uncertainty in the estimated propensity scores, and intuitively this may yield inferences, which are falsely precise. In this paper, we describe a Bayesian method that models the propensity score as a latent variable. We consider observational studies with a dichotomous treatment, dichotomous outcome, and measured confounders, where the log odds ratio is the measure of effect. Markov chain Monte Carlo is used for posterior simulation. We study the impact of modelling uncertainty in the propensity scores in a case study investigating the effect of statin therapy on mortality in Ontario patients discharged from hospital following acute myocardial infarction. Our analysis reveals that the Bayesian credible interval for the treatment effect is 10 per cent wider compared with a conventional propensity score analysis. Using simulations, we show that when the association between treatment and confounders is weak, then this increases uncertainty in the estimated propensity scores. Bayesian interval estimates for the treatment effect are longer on average, though there is little improvement in coverage probability. A novel feature of the proposed method is that it tits models for the treatment and outcome simultaneously rather than one at a time. The method uses the outcome variable to inform the fit of the propensity model. We explore the performance of the estimated propensity scores using cross-validation. Copyright (c) 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据