Simulating Data From Marginal Structural Models for a Survival Time Outcome

被引:0
作者
Seaman, Shaun R. [1 ]
Keogh, Ruth H. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Cambridge, MRC Biostat Unit, Cambridge, England
[2] London Sch Hyg & Trop Med, Dept Med Stat, London, England
基金
英国科研创新办公室;
关键词
bootstrap; causal inference; compatible models; congenial models; continuous-time marginal structural model; sandwich estimator; simulation studies; survival analysis; time-dependent confounding; INVERSE PROBABILITY; THERAPY;
D O I
10.1002/bimj.70010
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Marginal structural models (MSMs) are often used to estimate causal effects of treatments on survival time outcomes from observational data when time-dependent confounding may be present. They can be fitted using, for example, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). It is important to evaluate the performance of statistical methods in different scenarios, and simulation studies are a key tool for such evaluations. In such simulation studies, it is common to generate data in such a way that the model of interest is correctly specified, but this is not always straightforward when the model of interest is for potential outcomes, as is an MSM. Methods have been proposed for simulating from MSMs for a survival outcome, but these methods impose restrictions on the data-generating mechanism. Here, we propose a method that overcomes these restrictions. The MSM can be, for example, a marginal structural logistic model for a discrete survival time or a Cox or additive hazards MSM for a continuous survival time. The hazard of the potential survival time can be conditional on baseline covariates, and the treatment variable can be discrete or continuous. We illustrate the use of the proposed simulation algorithm by carrying out a brief simulation study. This study compares the coverage of confidence intervals calculated in two different ways for causal effect estimates obtained by fitting an MSM via IPTW.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 30 条
  • [1] Austin P.C., Bootstrap vs Asymptotic Variance Estimation When Using Propensity Score Weighting With Continuous and Binary Outcomes, Statistics in Medicine, 41, pp. 4426-4443, (2016)
  • [2] Austin P.C., Variance Estimation When Using Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (IPTW) With Survival Analysis, Statistics in Medicine, 35, pp. 5642-5655, (2016)
  • [3] Cain L.E., Saag M.S., Petersen M., Et al., Using Observational Data to Emulate a Randomized Trial of Dynamic Treatment-Switching Strategies: An Application to Antiretroviral Therapy, International Journal of Epidemiology, 45, pp. 2038-2049, (2016)
  • [4] Clare P.J., Dobbins T.A., Mattick R.P., Causal Models Adjusting for Time-Varying Confounding — A Systematic Review of the Literature, International Journal of Epidemiology, 48, pp. 254-265, (2019)
  • [5] Daniel R.M., Cousens S.N., De Stavola B.L., Kenward M.G., Sterne J.A.V., Methods for Dealing With Time-Dependent Confounding, Statistics in Medicine, 32, pp. 1584-1618, (2013)
  • [6] Dong Y., Continuous-Time Marginal Structural Models for Adverse Drug Effects in Pharmacoepidemiology, (2021)
  • [7] Emilsson L., Garcia-Albeniz X., Logan R.W., Caniglia E.C., Kalager M., Hernan M.A., Examining Bias in Studies of Statin Treatment and Survival in Patients With Cancer, JAMA Oncology, 4, pp. 63-70, (2017)
  • [8] Enders D., Engel S., Linder R., Pigeot I., Robust Versus Consistent Variance Estimators in Marginal Structural Cox Models, Statistics in Medicine, 37, pp. 3455-3470, (2018)
  • [9] Evans R.J., Didelez V., Parameterizing and Simulating From Causal Models, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 86, 3, pp. 535-568, (2024)
  • [10] Friedrich S., Friede T., On the Role of Benchmarking Data Sets and Simulations in Method Comparison Studies, Biometrical Journal, 66, (2024)