arXiv subjects

Elizabeth J. Williamson

Publications and source records attributed to Elizabeth J. Williamson.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2021

Planning a method for covariate adjustment in individually-randomised trials: a practical guide

Background: It has long been advised to account for baseline covariates in the analysis of confirmatory randomised trials, with the main statistical justifications being that this increases power and, when a randomisation scheme balanced covariates, permits a valid estimate of experimental error. There are various methods available to account for covariates but it is not clear how to choose among them. Methods: Taking the perspective of writing a statistical analysis plan, we consider how to choose between the three most promising broad approaches: direct adjustment, standardisation and inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting. Results: The three approaches are similar in being asymptotically efficient, in losing efficiency with mis-specified covariate functions, and in handling designed balance. If a marginal estimand is targeted (for example, a risk difference or survival difference), then direct adjustment should be avoided because it involves fitting non-standard models that are subject to convergence issues. Convergence is most likely with IPTW. Robust standard errors used by IPTW are anti-conservative at small sample sizes. All approaches can use similar methods to handle missing covariate data. With missing outcome data, each method has its own way to estimate a treatment effect in the all-randomised population. We illustrate some issues in a reanalysis of GetTested, a randomised trial designed to assess the effectiveness of an electonic sexually-transmitted-infection testing and results service. Conclusions: No single approach is always best: the choice will depend on the trial context. We encourage trialists to consider all three methods more routinely.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2019

Propensity scores using missingness pattern information: a practical guide

Electronic health records are a valuable data source for investigating health-related questions, and propensity score analysis has become an increasingly popular approach to address confounding bias in such investigations. However, because electronic health records are typically routinely recorded as part of standard clinical care, there are often missing values, particularly for potential confounders. In our motivating study -- using electronic health records to investigate the effect of renin-angiotensin system blockers on the risk of acute kidney injury -- two key confounders, ethnicity and chronic kidney disease stage, have $59\%$ and $53\%$ missing data, respectively. The missingness pattern approach (MPA), a variant of the missing indicator approach, has been proposed as a method for handling partially observed confounders in propensity score analysis. In the MPA, propensity scores are estimated separately for each missingness pattern present in the data. Although the assumptions underlying the validity of the MPA are stated in the literature, it can be difficult in practice to assess their plausibility. In this paper, we explore the MPA's underlying assumptions by using causal diagrams to assess their plausibility in a range of simple scenarios, drawing general conclusions about situations in which they are likely to be violated. We present a framework providing practical guidance for assessing whether the MPA's assumptions are plausible in a particular setting and thus deciding when the MPA is appropriate. We apply our framework to our motivating study, showing that the MPA's underlying assumptions appear reasonable, and we demonstrate the application of MPA to this study.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2016

Propensity score analysis with partially observed confounders: how should multiple imputation be used?

Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) is a popular propensity score (PS)-based approach to estimate causal effects in observational studies at risk of confounding bias. A major issue when estimating the PS is the presence of partially observed covariates. Multiple imputation (MI) is a natural approach to handle missing data on covariates, but its use in the PS context raises three important questions: (i) should we apply Rubin's rules to the IPTW treatment effect estimates or to the PS estimates themselves? (ii) does the outcome have to be included in the imputation model? (iii) how should we estimate the variance of the IPTW estimator after MI? We performed a simulation study focusing on the effect of a binary treatment on a binary outcome with three confounders (two of them partially observed). We used MI with chained equations to create complete datasets and compared three ways of combining the results: combining treatment effect estimates (MIte); combining the PS across the imputed datasets (MIps); or combining the PS parameters and estimating the PS of the average covariates across the imputed datasets (MIpar). We also compared the performance of these methods to complete case (CC) analysis and the missingness pattern (MP) approach, a method which uses a different PS model for each pattern of missingness. We also studied empirically the consistency of these 3 MI estimators. Under a missing at random (MAR) mechanism, CC and MP analyses were biased in most cases when estimating the marginal treatment effect, whereas MI approaches had good performance in reducing bias as long as the outcome was included in the imputation model. However, only MIte was unbiased in all the studied scenarios and Rubin's rules provided good variance estimates for MIte.

stat.ME↗