Weighted m-statistics with superior design sensitivity in matched observational studies with multiple controls

• Autores: Paul R. Rosenbaum
• Localización: Journal of the American Statistical Association, ISSN 0162-1459, Vol. 109, Nº 507, 2014, págs. 1145-1158
• Idioma: inglés
• DOI: 10.1080/01621459.2013.879261
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • In a nonrandomized or observational study, a weak association between receipt of the treatment and an outcome may be explained not as effects caused by the treatment but rather by a small bias in the assignment of individuals to treatment or control; however, a strong association may be explained as noncausal only by a large bias. The strength of the association between treatment and outcome is not uniform across the data from a study, and this motivates giving greater weight where the association is stronger. In an observational study with treated-control matched pairs, it is known that results are less sensitive to unmeasured biases if pairs with small absolute differences in outcomes are given little weight in the analysis; more precisely, such a test statistic has superior design sensitivity. How should outcomes be weighted if an observational study is matched in sets with one treated subject and several controls? An M-statistic is the quantity equated to zero in defining Huber�s M-estimates, including the mean, and it is used in testing hypotheses and setting confidence limits. In matched sets, a weighted M-statistic increases the weight of some matched sets and decreases the weight of others. Not unlike the case of matched pairs, weighted M-statistics with suitable weights have larger design sensitivities, and hence greater power in a sensitivity analysis, than unweighted statistics for symmetric unimodal errors, such as Normal, logistic, or t-distributed errors. This issue is examined using an asymptotic measure, the design sensitivity, and using simulation. For one Normal sampling situation, weighting the matched sets increased the power of a 0.05 level sensitivity analysis from 0.05 without weights to 0.75 with weights. An example from NHANES 2009�2010 concerning methylmercury in the blood of people who consume large amounts of fish is used to illustrate.