Performance of modeling and balancing approach methods when using weights to estimate treatment effects in observational time-to-event settings

Abstract

In observational studies weighting techniques are often used to overcome bias due to confounding. Modeling approaches, such as inverse propensity score weighting, are popular, but often rely on the correct specification of a parametric model wherein neither balance nor stability are targeted. More recently, balancing approach methods that directly target covariate imbalances have been proposed, and these allow the researcher to explicitly set the desired balance constraints. In this study, we evaluate the finite sample properties of different modeling and balancing approach methods, when estimating the marginal hazard ratio, through Monte Carlo simulations. The use of the different methods is also illustrated by analyzing data from the Swedish stroke register to estimate the effect of prescribing oral anticoagulants on time to recurrent stroke or death in stroke patients with atrial fibrillation. In simulated scenarios with good overlap and low or no model misspecification the balancing approach methods performed similarly to the modeling approach methods. In scenarios with bad overlap and model misspecification, the modeling approach method incorporating variable selection performed better than the other methods. The results indicate that it is valuable to use methods that target covariate balance when estimating marginal hazard ratios, but this does not in itself guarantee good performance in situations with, e.g., poor overlap, high censoring, or misspecified models/balance constraints.