IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i13p6694-d579352.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Propensity Score Analysis with Partially Observed Baseline Covariates: A Practical Comparison of Methods for Handling Missing Data

Author

Listed:
  • Daniele Bottigliengo

    (Unit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health, Department of Cardiac, Thoracic, Vascular Sciences and Public Health, University of Padova, 35122 Padova, Italy)

  • Giulia Lorenzoni

    (Unit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health, Department of Cardiac, Thoracic, Vascular Sciences and Public Health, University of Padova, 35122 Padova, Italy)

  • Honoria Ocagli

    (Unit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health, Department of Cardiac, Thoracic, Vascular Sciences and Public Health, University of Padova, 35122 Padova, Italy)

  • Matteo Martinato

    (Unit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health, Department of Cardiac, Thoracic, Vascular Sciences and Public Health, University of Padova, 35122 Padova, Italy)

  • Paola Berchialla

    (Department of Clinical and Biological Sciences, University of Torino, 10124 Torino, Italy)

  • Dario Gregori

    (Unit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health, Department of Cardiac, Thoracic, Vascular Sciences and Public Health, University of Padova, 35122 Padova, Italy)

Abstract

(1) Background: Propensity score methods gained popularity in non-interventional clinical studies. As it may often occur in observational datasets, some values in baseline covariates are missing for some patients. The present study aims to compare the performances of popular statistical methods to deal with missing data in propensity score analysis. (2) Methods: Methods that account for missing data during the estimation process and methods based on the imputation of missing values, such as multiple imputations, were considered. The methods were applied on the dataset of an ongoing prospective registry for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery disease. The performances were assessed in terms of the overall balance of baseline covariates. (3) Results: Methods that explicitly deal with missing data were superior to classical complete case analysis. The best balance was observed when propensity scores were estimated with a method that accounts for missing data using a stochastic approximation of the expectation-maximization algorithm. (4) Conclusions: If missing at random mechanism is plausible, methods that use missing data to estimate propensity score or impute them should be preferred. Sensitivity analyses are encouraged to evaluate the implications methods used to handle missing data and estimate propensity score.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniele Bottigliengo & Giulia Lorenzoni & Honoria Ocagli & Matteo Martinato & Paola Berchialla & Dario Gregori, 2021. "Propensity Score Analysis with Partially Observed Baseline Covariates: A Practical Comparison of Methods for Handling Missing Data," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(13), pages 1-17, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:13:p:6694-:d:579352
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/13/6694/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/13/6694/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jiang, Wei & Josse, Julie & Lavielle, Marc, 2020. "Logistic regression with missing covariates—Parameter estimation, model selection and prediction within a joint-modeling framework," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    2. Ben B. Hansen, 2004. "Full Matching in an Observational Study of Coaching for the SAT," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 99, pages 609-618, January.
    3. Kosuke Imai & Marc Ratkovic, 2014. "Covariate balancing propensity score," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 76(1), pages 243-263, January.
    4. Alessandra Mattei, 2009. "Estimating and using propensity score in presence of missing background data: an application to assess the impact of childbearing on wellbeing," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 18(2), pages 257-273, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Emily Mena & Katharina Stahlmann & Klaus Telkmann & Gabriele Bolte & on behalf of the AdvanceGender Study Group, 2023. "Intersectionality-Informed Sex/Gender-Sensitivity in Public Health Monitoring and Reporting (PHMR): A Case Study Assessing Stratification on an “Intersectional Gender-Score”," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-15, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cousineau, Martin & Verter, Vedat & Murphy, Susan A. & Pineau, Joelle, 2023. "Estimating causal effects with optimization-based methods: A review and empirical comparison," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(2), pages 367-380.
    2. Martin Cousineau & Vedat Verter & Susan A. Murphy & Joelle Pineau, 2022. "Estimating causal effects with optimization-based methods: A review and empirical comparison," Papers 2203.00097, arXiv.org.
    3. Noémi Kreif & Richard Grieve & Iván Díaz & David Harrison, 2015. "Evaluation of the Effect of a Continuous Treatment: A Machine Learning Approach with an Application to Treatment for Traumatic Brain Injury," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(9), pages 1213-1228, September.
    4. Turner, Alex J. & Fichera, Eleonora & Sutton, Matt, 2021. "The effects of in-utero exposure to influenza on mental health and mortality risk throughout the life-course," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    5. Zichen Deng & Maarten Lindeboom, 2021. "Early-life Famine Exposure, Hunger Recall and Later-life Health," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 21-054/V, Tinbergen Institute.
    6. Baron, Opher & Callen, Jeffrey L. & Segal, Dan, 2023. "Does the bullwhip matter economically? A cross-sectional firm-level analysis," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 259(C).
    7. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens & Stefan Wager, 2018. "Approximate residual balancing: debiased inference of average treatment effects in high dimensions," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 80(4), pages 597-623, September.
    8. Mortimer, Duncan & Harris, Anthony & Wijnands, Jasper S. & Stevenson, Mark, 2021. "Persistence or reversal? The micro-effects of time-varying financial penalties," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 72-86.
    9. Pedro H. C. Sant'Anna & Xiaojun Song & Qi Xu, 2022. "Covariate distribution balance via propensity scores," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(6), pages 1093-1120, September.
    10. Jaiswal, Sreeja & Balietti, Anca & Schäffer, Daniel, 2023. "Environmental Protection and Labor Market Composition," Working Papers 0736, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    11. Caloffi, Annalisa & Freo, Marzia & Ghinoi, Stefano & Mariani, Marco & Rossi, Federica, 2022. "Assessing the effects of a deliberate policy mix: The case of technology and innovation advisory services and innovation vouchers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(6).
    12. Sourafel Girma & Holger Görg, 2022. "Productivity effects of processing and ordinary export market entry: A time‐varying treatments approach," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(3), pages 836-853, August.
    13. Meyer, Maximilian & Hulke, Carolin & Kamwi, Jonathan & Kolem, Hannah & Börner, Jan, 2022. "Spatially heterogeneous effects of collective action on environmental dependence in Namibia’s Zambezi region," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    14. Oyenubi, Adeola & Kollamparambil, Umakrishnan, 2023. "Does noncompliance with COVID-19 regulations impact the depressive symptoms of others?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    15. Martín-García, Jaime & Gómez-Limón, José A. & Arriaza, Manuel, 2024. "Conversion to organic farming: Does it change the economic and environmental performance of fruit farms?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    16. Waverly Wei & Maya Petersen & Mark J van der Laan & Zeyu Zheng & Chong Wu & Jingshen Wang, 2023. "Efficient targeted learning of heterogeneous treatment effects for multiple subgroups," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(3), pages 1934-1946, September.
    17. Zhenzhen Xu & John D. Kalbfleisch, 2013. "Repeated Randomization and Matching in Multi-Arm Trials," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 69(4), pages 949-959, December.
    18. Chunrong Ai & Oliver Linton & Kaiji Motegi & Zheng Zhang, 2021. "A unified framework for efficient estimation of general treatment models," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(3), pages 779-816, July.
    19. Raiden B. Hasegawa & Sameer K. Deshpande & Dylan S. Small & Paul R. Rosenbaum, 2020. "Causal Inference With Two Versions of Treatment," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 45(4), pages 426-445, August.
    20. Plamen Nikolov & Hongjian Wang & Kevin Acker, 2020. "Wage premium of Communist Party membership: Evidence from China," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(3), pages 309-338, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:13:p:6694-:d:579352. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.