Abstract:Abstract Background: Propensity score weighting methods are frequently used in observational studies to estimate causal effects. However, researchers usually evaluate their performance only in homogeneous populations. When treatment effects are heterogeneous, it is unclear about the ability of commonly used weighting methods in estimating the average treatment effect (ATE) for the whole population. Methods: Two categories of propensity score weighting approaches are discussed to estimate the ATE for the whole population with heterogeneity: one in which the target of inference is the whole population, including Stabilized inverse probability weighting (SIPW), Empirical likelihood weighting (ELW), Covariate balancing propensity score weighting (CBPS); and the other whose target of inference is the specific population, including Inverse probability weighting with trimming (IPWT), Overlap weighting (OW). To assess the performance of these methods, a simulation study was conducted in terms of bias and root mean square error (RMSE), under six heterogeneity scenarios and three degrees of overlap in the propensity score distributions. Results: According to simulation results, approaches that target the specific population have a substantial bias that rises quickly with increasing heterogeneity. In contrast, approaches for the whole population perform well with relatively smaller bias and RMSE, where CBPS outperforms the others in all heterogeneity scenarios and overlap degrees. When methods are applied to Lindner data with heterogeneity, the results of approaches for the whole population are quite different from approaches for the specific population. Conclusions: When the estimand is the ATE for the whole populations with heterogeneity, applying weighting methods that target specific populations (e.g. IPWT, OW) to estimate it would lead to substantial bias. It is recommended to use methods targeting the whole population (e.g. CBPS, ELW) to achieve this goal.

A Statistical Method for Protocol Modifications With Heterogeneous Population Variances

Supplementary Data S3 from Proportional Hazards Violations in Phase III Cancer Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Trial Misinterpretation

Some Recent Advances on Statistical Approaches for Planning Multi-regional Clinical Trials

Bridging Continual Reassessment Method for Phase I Clinical Trials in Different Ethnic Populations

The Impact of Varying Patient Populations on the In-Control Performance of the Risk-Adjusted Cusum Chart

Covariate adjustment and estimation of difference in proportions in randomized clinical trials

Are the tests overpowered or underpowered? A unified solution to correctly specify type I errors in design of clinical trials for two sample proportions

Exploring Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials When Some of the Patients are Treated against the Randomization

Supplementary Data S2 from Proportional Hazards Violations in Phase III Cancer Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Trial Misinterpretation

A Calibrated Power Prior Approach to Borrow Information from Historical Data with Application to Biosimilar Clinical Trials.

A Practical Analysis Procedure on Generalizing Comparative Effectiveness in the Randomized Clinical Trial to the Real-world Trialeligible Population

Adjustment of selection bias for clinical trials: a simulation study

A modified regression method to test publication bias in meta-analyses with binary outcomes

Hybrid classical-Bayesian approach to sample size determination for two-arm superiority clinical trials

A novel statistical method for comparing effectiveness of two treatments-simulated randomized controlled trials

A Design For Survival Studies: A Multi-regional Trial With Unrecognized Heterogeneity

Statistical design considerations for trials that study multiple indications

Evaluating propensity score weighting methods in heterogeneous population: a comparative study

A Semiparametric Approach to Model Effect Modification

Clarifying the Role of the Mantel-Haenszel Risk Difference Estimator in Randomized Clinical Trials

Changing interim monitoring in response to internal clinical trial data