A Simulation Study Comparing the Performance of Time-Varying Inverse Probability Weighting and G-Computation in Survival Analysis

Inverse probability weighting (IPW) and g-computation are commonly used in time-varying analyses. To inform decisions on which to use, we compared these methods using a plasmode simulation based on data from the Effects of Aspirin in Gestation and Reproduction (EAGeR) Trial (June 15, 2007-July 15, 2011). In our main analysis, we simulated a cohort study of 1,226 individuals followed for up to 10 weeks. The exposure was weekly exercise, and the outcome was time to pregnancy. We controlled for 6 confounding factors: 4 baseline confounders (race, ever smoking, age, and body mass index) and 2 time-varying confounders (compliance with assigned treatment and nausea). We sought to estimate the average causal risk difference by 10 weeks, using IPW and g-computation implemented using a Monte Carlo estimator and iterated conditional expectations (ICE). Across 500 simulations, we compared the bias, empirical standard error (ESE), average standard error, standard error ratio, and 95% confidence interval coverage of each approach. IPW (bias = 0.02; ESE = 0.04; coverage = 92.6%) and Monte Carlo g-computation (bias = -0.01; ESE = 0.03; coverage = 94.2%) performed similarly. ICE g-computation was the least biased but least precise estimator (bias = 0.01; ESE = 0.06; coverage = 93.4%). When choosing an estimator, one should consider factors like the research question, the prevalences of the exposure and outcome, and the number of time points being analyzed.

Automated summary

The authors compared the performance of inverse probability weighting (IPW) and g-computation in time-varying analyses. They found that IPW and Monte Carlo g-computation performed similarly, while ICE g-computation had the least bias but lowest precision.