学术文献库

Much evidence in comparative effectiveness research is based on observational studies. Researchers who conduct observational studies typically assume that there are no unobservable differences between the treated and control groups. Treatment effects are estimated after adjusting for observed differences between treated and controls. However, treatment effect estimates may be biased due to model misspecification. That is, if the method of treatment effect estimation imposes unduly strong functional form assumptions, treatment effect estimates may be significantly biased. In this study, we compare the performance of a wide variety of treatment effect estimation methods. We do so within the context of the REFLUX study from the UK. In REFLUX, after study qualification, participants were enrolled in either a randomized trial arm or patient preference arm. In the randomized trial, patients were randomly assigned to either surgery or medical management. In the patient preference arm, participants selected to either have surgery or medical management. We attempt to recover the treatment effect estimate from the randomized trial arm using the data from the patient preference arm of the study. We vary the method of treatment effect estimation and record which methods are successful and which are not. We apply over 20 different methods including standard regression models as well as advanced machine learning methods. We find that simple propensity score matching methods perform the worst. We also find significant variation in performance across methods. The wide variation in performance suggests analysts should use multiple methods of estimation as a robustness check.