2022
DOI: 10.1007/s10742-022-00280-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A tutorial comparing different covariate balancing methods with an application evaluating the causal effects of substance use treatment programs for adolescents

Abstract: Randomized controlled trials are the gold standard for measuring causal effects. However, they are often not always feasible, and causal treatment effects must be estimated from observational data. Observational studies do not allow robust conclusions about causal relationships unless statistical techniques account for the imbalance of pretreatment confounders across groups and key assumptions hold. Propensity score and balance weighting (PSBW) are useful techniques that aim to reduce the observed imbalances b… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 68 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, the threshold for imbalance ought to become less stringent as sample size falls. On the second, we agree that a threshold is arbitrary at first, but the observational research field including most of these authors have come to relative agreement on a 0.1 constant threshold [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] despite the fact that no threshold can guarantee immunity from important bias. The appropriateness of a threshold is decided slowly over time as real study results are compared to baseline knowledge and validated in later randomized experiments.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 57%
“…Therefore, the threshold for imbalance ought to become less stringent as sample size falls. On the second, we agree that a threshold is arbitrary at first, but the observational research field including most of these authors have come to relative agreement on a 0.1 constant threshold [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] despite the fact that no threshold can guarantee immunity from important bias. The appropriateness of a threshold is decided slowly over time as real study results are compared to baseline knowledge and validated in later randomized experiments.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 57%
“…We addressed these measured and unmeasured confounding variables using do‐ calculus logic (Pearl, 1995, 2009; Shrier & Platt, 2008; Suttorp et al., 2015) (see Supporting Information for details). EBAL weights were assigned to the pixels to ensure that pixels of the four different vegetation classes were comparable with respect to the four topographical covariates and distance to fire centroid (Greifer, 2019; Markoulidakis et al., 2022; Matschinger et al., 2020). Using the weighted data, we built a logistic regression model that predicted fire susceptibility from vegetation type, topographical variables and distance from burn area centroid.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, new statistical tools have also made it easier to handle data extracted from burn area and vegetation time series. There are now standardised workflows to handle covariate imbalance, such as the tendency for forests to be found in wetter valleys, by matching or reweighting (Cannas & Arpino, 2019; Markoulidakis et al., 2022). Survival analysis, which is used to model fire‐vegetation feedbacks (Reed et al., 1998; Tepley et al., 2018) and vegetation succession (Longpre & Morris, 2012), has also developed rapidly.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The SMD reports the magnitude of difference between groups, and is independent of the sample size. SMD>.1 (10%) was interpreted as a meaningful effect size 17,18 . We compared donor characteristics across AKI stages using Pearson's chi‐squared test for categorical variables and Cuzick's test based on ranks for continuous variables.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%