Differences between marginal structural models and conventional models in their exposure effect estimates: A systematic review

David Suarez, Roger Borràs, Xavier Basagaña

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

37 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Marginal structural models were developed to address time-varying confounding in nonrandomized exposure effect studies. It is unclear how estimates from marginal structural models and conventional models might differ in real settings. Methods: We systematically reviewed the literature on marginal structural models since 2000. Results: Data to compare marginal structural models and conventional models were obtained from 65 papers reporting 164 exposureoutcome associations. In 58 (40%), estimates differed by at least 20%, and in 18 (11%), the 2 techniques resulted in estimates with opposite interpretations. In 88 papers, marginal structural models were used to analyze real data; only 53 (60%) papers reported the use of stabilized inverse-probability weights and only 28 (32%) reported that they verified that the mean of the stabilized inverseprobability weights was close to 1.0. Conclusions: We found important differences in results from marginal structural models and from conventional models in real studies. Furthermore, reporting of marginal structural models can be improved. © 2011 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)586-588
JournalEpidemiology
Volume22
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jul 2011

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Differences between marginal structural models and conventional models in their exposure effect estimates: A systematic review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this