IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/csdana/v86y2015icp42-51.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multiple comparisons for survival data with propensity score adjustment

Author

Listed:
  • Zhu, Hong
  • Lu, Bo

Abstract

This article considers the practical problem in clinical and observational studies where multiple treatment or prognostic groups are compared and the observed survival data are subject to right censoring. Two possible formulations of multiple comparisons are suggested. Multiple Comparisons with a Control (MCC) compare every other group to a control group with respect to survival outcomes, for determining which groups are associated with lower risk than the control. Multiple Comparisons with the Best (MCB) compare each group to the truly minimum risk group and identify the groups that are either with the minimum risk or the practically minimum risk. To make a causal statement, potential confounding effects need to be adjusted in the comparisons. Propensity score based adjustment is popular in causal inference and can effectively reduce the confounding bias. Based on a propensity-score-stratified Cox proportional hazards model, the approaches of MCC test and MCB simultaneous confidence intervals for general linear models with normal error outcome are extended to survival outcome. This paper specifies the assumptions for causal inference on survival outcomes within a potential outcome framework, develops testing procedures for multiple comparisons and provides simultaneous confidence intervals. The proposed methods are applied to two real data sets from cancer studies for illustration, and a simulation study is also presented.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhu, Hong & Lu, Bo, 2015. "Multiple comparisons for survival data with propensity score adjustment," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 42-51.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:csdana:v:86:y:2015:i:c:p:42-51
    DOI: 10.1016/j.csda.2015.01.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167947315000110
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.csda.2015.01.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lu B. & Zanutto E. & Hornik R. & Rosenbaum P.R., 2001. "Matching With Doses in an Observational Study of a Media Campaign Against Drug Abuse," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 96, pages 1245-1253, December.
    2. Kosuke Imai & David A. van Dyk, 2004. "Causal Inference With General Treatment Regimes: Generalizing the Propensity Score," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 99, pages 854-866, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Murillo Campello & Rafael P. Ribas & Albert Y. Wang, 2014. "Is the Stock Market Just a Side Show? Evidence from a Structural Reform," The Review of Corporate Finance Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 3(1-2), pages 1-38.
    2. BIA Michela & FLORES Carlos A. & MATTEI Alessandra, 2011. "Nonparametric Estimators of Dose-Response Functions," LISER Working Paper Series 2011-40, Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER).
    3. Michela Bia & Alessandra Mattei, 2012. "Assessing the effect of the amount of financial aids to Piedmont firms using the generalized propensity score," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 21(4), pages 485-516, November.
    4. Valentina Adorno & Cristina Bernini & Guido Pellegrini, 2007. "The Impact of Capital Subsidies: New Estimations under Continuous Treatment," Giornale degli Economisti, GDE (Giornale degli Economisti e Annali di Economia), Bocconi University, vol. 66(1), pages 67-92, March.
    5. Michela Bia & Roberto Leombruni & Pierre-Jean Messe, 2009. "Young in-Old out: a new evaluation based on Generalized Propensity Score," LABORatorio R. Revelli Working Papers Series 93, LABORatorio R. Revelli, Centre for Employment Studies.
    6. Bo Lu & Zhenchao Qian & Anna Cunningham & Chih-Lin Li, 2012. "Estimating the Effect of Premarital Cohabitation on Timing of Marital Disruption," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 41(3), pages 440-466, August.
    7. Stephen L. Morgan & David J. Harding, 2006. "Matching Estimators of Causal Effects," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 35(1), pages 3-60, August.
    8. Noémi Kreif & Richard Grieve & Iván Díaz & David Harrison, 2015. "Evaluation of the Effect of a Continuous Treatment: A Machine Learning Approach with an Application to Treatment for Traumatic Brain Injury," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(9), pages 1213-1228, September.
    9. Pablo Ibarraran & Miguel Sarzosa & Yuri Suarez Dillon Soares, 2008. "The Welfare Impacts of Local Investment Projects: Evidence from the Guatemala FIS," OVE Working Papers 0208, Inter-American Development Bank, Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE).
    10. Jerzy Michalek & Pavel Ciaian & d’Artis Kancs, 2014. "Capitalization of the Single Payment Scheme into Land Value: Generalized Propensity Score Evidence from the European Union," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(2), pages 260-289.
    11. Hilal Atasoy & Rajiv D. Banker & Paul A. Pavlou, 2016. "On the Longitudinal Effects of IT Use on Firm-Level Employment," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 6-26, March.
    12. Tugba Akkaya Hocagil & Richard J. Cook & Sandra W. Jacobson & Joseph L. Jacobson & Louise M. Ryan, 2021. "Propensity score analysis for a semi‐continuous exposure variable: a study of gestational alcohol exposure and childhood cognition," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(4), pages 1390-1413, October.
    13. Becker, Sascha O. & Egger, Peter H. & von Ehrlich, Maximilian, 2012. "Too much of a good thing? On the growth effects of the EU's regional policy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(4), pages 648-668.
    14. Michael C. Knaus, 2021. "A double machine learning approach to estimate the effects of musical practice on student’s skills," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(1), pages 282-300, January.
    15. Malcolm Keswell & Michael R. Carter, 2011. "Poverty and Land Distribution: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2011-046, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    16. Yannis Yatracos, 2013. "Equal percent bias reduction and variance proportionate modifying properties with mean–covariance preserving matching," Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, Springer;The Institute of Statistical Mathematics, vol. 65(1), pages 69-87, February.
    17. W K Newey & S Stouli, 2022. "Heterogeneous coefficients, control variables and identification of multiple treatment effects [Multivalued treatments and decomposition analysis: An application to the WIA program]," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 109(3), pages 865-872.
    18. Chunrong Ai & Oliver Linton & Kaiji Motegi & Zheng Zhang, 2021. "A unified framework for efficient estimation of general treatment models," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(3), pages 779-816, July.
    19. Ida D'Attoma & Silvia Pacei, 2018. "Evaluating the Effects of Product Innovation on the Performance of European Firms by Using the Generalised Propensity Score," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 19(1), pages 94-112, February.
    20. Martin Huber & Yu‐Chin Hsu & Ying‐Ying Lee & Layal Lettry, 2020. "Direct and indirect effects of continuous treatments based on generalized propensity score weighting," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 35(7), pages 814-840, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:csdana:v:86:y:2015:i:c:p:42-51. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/csda .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.