ArticleSubstance use : research and treatment
Comparing Regression Adjustment, Matching, and Inverse Probability Weights in Small Sub-Populations in the HIV SUCCESS Consortium: A Real-World Data Example.
Article in Substance use : research and treatment. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: To understand the trade-offs between different statistical modeling approaches, using real world data with small sub-populations, with rare exposures and increasingly rare outcomes. In particular, to compare adjusted regression, inverse probability weighting, and matching. Methods: Data for these analyses came from the RADAR (N=1,134) and combined CNICS/JHHCC (N=14,434) cohorts. We estimated prevalence ratios (PRs) for self-reported use of specific substances comparing subpopulations (SP), SP-1 vs SP-3 and SP-2 vs SP-3, where SP-1 was the largest proportion (92% in RADAR, 81% in CNICS/JHHCC), SP2 was moderate proportion (18% in CNICS/JHHCC) and SP-3 was the smallest proportion (8% in RADAR, 1% in CNICS/JHHCC) of the population. We calculated PRs using 1) unadjusted relative risk regression (RR); and adjusted estimates controlling for age, race/ethnicity, study site, and year of interview using: 2) standard adjustment in RR; 3) stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW); and 4) matching with up to 3 matches from SP-1 or SP-2 per SP-3 participant. Results: For most substances, all methods yielded consistent estimates. There were large weights in some of the IPTW analyses and in three cases these resulted in substantially divergent estimates. For the comparison between SP-1 and SP-3, the estimate for smoking was 1.3-fold greater in the matched analysis (PR=1.33, 95% CI: 1.02-1.75) than in IPTW (PR=1.03, 95% CI: 0.78-1.37 ATE and PR=1.05, 95% CI: 0.88-1.26 ATT). Even more extreme divergence in estimates was observed for differences between SP-2 and SP-3 with respect to methamphetamine/amphetamine, (IPTW-ATE: PR=1.51, 95% CI: 0.79-2.89; IPTW-ATT: PR=2.36, 95% CI: 1.36-4.12); vs Matching: PR=2.71, 95%CI: 1.47-4.99) and cocaine (IPTW-ATE: PR=1.15, 95% CI: 0.55-2.38; IPTW-ATT: PR=1.81, 95% CI: 1.03-3.18); vs Matching: PR=1.38, 95%CI: 0.76-2.53). Conclusion: The combination of a rare exposure and a rare outcome can produce challenges for commonly used confounding adjustment strategies, and it is often best to compare different modeling approaches to gain greater insight.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.