Minimizing confounding in comparative observational studies with time-to-event outcomes: An extensive comparison of covariate balancing methods using Monte Carlo simulation.

ABSTRACT

Observational studies are frequently used in clinical research to estimate the effects of treatments or exposures on outcomes. To reduce the effects of confounding when estimating treatment effects, covariate balancing methods are frequently implemented. This study evaluated, using extensive Monte Carlo simulation, several methods of covariate balancing, and two methods for propensity score estimation, for estimating the average treatment effect on the treated using a hazard ratio from a Cox proportional hazards model. With respect to minimizing bias and maximizing accuracy (as measured by the mean square error) of the treatment effect, the average treatment effect on the treated weighting, fine stratification, and optimal full matching with a conventional logistic regression model for the propensity score performed best across all simulated conditions. Other methods performed well in specific circumstances, such as pair matching when sample sizes were large (n = 5000) and the proportion treated was < 0.25. Statistical power was generally higher for weighting methods than matching methods, and Type I error rates were at or below the nominal level for balancing methods with unbiased treatment effect estimates. There was also a decreasing effective sample size with an increasing number of strata, therefore for stratification-based weighting methods, it may be important to consider fewer strata. Generally, we recommend methods that performed well in our simulations, although the identification of methods that performed well is necessarily limited by the specific features of our simulation. The methods are illustrated using a real-world example comparing beta blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors among hypertensive patients at risk for incident stroke.