Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Dec 10;34(28):3661-79.
doi: 10.1002/sim.6607. Epub 2015 Aug 3.

Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies

Affiliations

Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies

Peter C Austin et al. Stat Med. .

Abstract

The propensity score is defined as a subject's probability of treatment selection, conditional on observed baseline covariates. Weighting subjects by the inverse probability of treatment received creates a synthetic sample in which treatment assignment is independent of measured baseline covariates. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score allows one to obtain unbiased estimates of average treatment effects. However, these estimates are only valid if there are no residual systematic differences in observed baseline characteristics between treated and control subjects in the sample weighted by the estimated inverse probability of treatment. We report on a systematic literature review, in which we found that the use of IPTW has increased rapidly in recent years, but that in the most recent year, a majority of studies did not formally examine whether weighting balanced measured covariates between treatment groups. We then proceed to describe a suite of quantitative and qualitative methods that allow one to assess whether measured baseline covariates are balanced between treatment groups in the weighted sample. The quantitative methods use the weighted standardized difference to compare means, prevalences, higher-order moments, and interactions. The qualitative methods employ graphical methods to compare the distribution of continuous baseline covariates between treated and control subjects in the weighted sample. Finally, we illustrate the application of these methods in an empirical case study. We propose a formal set of balance diagnostics that contribute towards an evolving concept of 'best practice' when using IPTW to estimate causal treatment effects using observational data.

Keywords: IPTW; causal inference; inverse probability of treatment weighting; observational study; propensity score.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Number of published IPTW studies.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Absolute standardized differences in unweighted and weighted samples.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Distribution of age between treated and control subjects.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Distribution of respiratory rate between treated and control subjects.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Distribution of creatinine between treated and control subjects.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Distribution of hemoglobin between treated and control subjects.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Distribution of log‐creatinine between treated and control subjects.

References

    1. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70:41–55.
    1. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1984; 79:516–524.
    1. Austin PC. An introduction to propensity‐score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research 2011; 46:399–424. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rosenbaum PR. Model‐based direct adjustment. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1987; 82:387–394.
    1. Rubin DB. Using propensity scores to help design observational studies: application to the tobacco litigation. Health Services & Outcomes Research Methodology 2001; 2:169–188.

Publication types

MeSH terms