Cargando…
A comparison of covariate adjustment approaches under model misspecification in individually randomized trials
Adjustment for baseline covariates in randomized trials has been shown to lead to gains in power and can protect against chance imbalances in covariates. For continuous covariates, there is a risk that the the form of the relationship between the covariate and outcome is misspecified when taking an...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9817411/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36609282 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06967-6 |
_version_ | 1784864749153943552 |
---|---|
author | Tackney, Mia S. Morris, Tim White, Ian Leyrat, Clemence Diaz-Ordaz, Karla Williamson, Elizabeth |
author_facet | Tackney, Mia S. Morris, Tim White, Ian Leyrat, Clemence Diaz-Ordaz, Karla Williamson, Elizabeth |
author_sort | Tackney, Mia S. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Adjustment for baseline covariates in randomized trials has been shown to lead to gains in power and can protect against chance imbalances in covariates. For continuous covariates, there is a risk that the the form of the relationship between the covariate and outcome is misspecified when taking an adjusted approach. Using a simulation study focusing on individually randomized trials with small sample sizes, we explore whether a range of adjustment methods are robust to misspecification, either in the covariate–outcome relationship or through an omitted covariate–treatment interaction. Specifically, we aim to identify potential settings where G-computation, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), augmented inverse probability of treatment weighting (AIPTW) and targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE) offer improvement over the commonly used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Our simulations show that all adjustment methods are generally robust to model misspecification if adjusting for a few covariates, sample size is 100 or larger, and there are no covariate–treatment interactions. When there is a non-linear interaction of treatment with a skewed covariate and sample size is small, all adjustment methods can suffer from bias; however, methods that allow for interactions (such as G-computation with interaction and IPTW) show improved results compared to ANCOVA. When there are a high number of covariates to adjust for, ANCOVA retains good properties while other methods suffer from under- or over-coverage. An outstanding issue for G-computation, IPTW and AIPTW in small samples is that standard errors are underestimated; they should be used with caution without the availability of small-sample corrections, development of which is needed. These findings are relevant for covariate adjustment in interim analyses of larger trials. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06967-6. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9817411 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-98174112023-01-07 A comparison of covariate adjustment approaches under model misspecification in individually randomized trials Tackney, Mia S. Morris, Tim White, Ian Leyrat, Clemence Diaz-Ordaz, Karla Williamson, Elizabeth Trials Methodology Adjustment for baseline covariates in randomized trials has been shown to lead to gains in power and can protect against chance imbalances in covariates. For continuous covariates, there is a risk that the the form of the relationship between the covariate and outcome is misspecified when taking an adjusted approach. Using a simulation study focusing on individually randomized trials with small sample sizes, we explore whether a range of adjustment methods are robust to misspecification, either in the covariate–outcome relationship or through an omitted covariate–treatment interaction. Specifically, we aim to identify potential settings where G-computation, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), augmented inverse probability of treatment weighting (AIPTW) and targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE) offer improvement over the commonly used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Our simulations show that all adjustment methods are generally robust to model misspecification if adjusting for a few covariates, sample size is 100 or larger, and there are no covariate–treatment interactions. When there is a non-linear interaction of treatment with a skewed covariate and sample size is small, all adjustment methods can suffer from bias; however, methods that allow for interactions (such as G-computation with interaction and IPTW) show improved results compared to ANCOVA. When there are a high number of covariates to adjust for, ANCOVA retains good properties while other methods suffer from under- or over-coverage. An outstanding issue for G-computation, IPTW and AIPTW in small samples is that standard errors are underestimated; they should be used with caution without the availability of small-sample corrections, development of which is needed. These findings are relevant for covariate adjustment in interim analyses of larger trials. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06967-6. BioMed Central 2023-01-06 /pmc/articles/PMC9817411/ /pubmed/36609282 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06967-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Methodology Tackney, Mia S. Morris, Tim White, Ian Leyrat, Clemence Diaz-Ordaz, Karla Williamson, Elizabeth A comparison of covariate adjustment approaches under model misspecification in individually randomized trials |
title | A comparison of covariate adjustment approaches under model misspecification in individually randomized trials |
title_full | A comparison of covariate adjustment approaches under model misspecification in individually randomized trials |
title_fullStr | A comparison of covariate adjustment approaches under model misspecification in individually randomized trials |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of covariate adjustment approaches under model misspecification in individually randomized trials |
title_short | A comparison of covariate adjustment approaches under model misspecification in individually randomized trials |
title_sort | comparison of covariate adjustment approaches under model misspecification in individually randomized trials |
topic | Methodology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9817411/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36609282 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06967-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT tackneymias acomparisonofcovariateadjustmentapproachesundermodelmisspecificationinindividuallyrandomizedtrials AT morristim acomparisonofcovariateadjustmentapproachesundermodelmisspecificationinindividuallyrandomizedtrials AT whiteian acomparisonofcovariateadjustmentapproachesundermodelmisspecificationinindividuallyrandomizedtrials AT leyratclemence acomparisonofcovariateadjustmentapproachesundermodelmisspecificationinindividuallyrandomizedtrials AT diazordazkarla acomparisonofcovariateadjustmentapproachesundermodelmisspecificationinindividuallyrandomizedtrials AT williamsonelizabeth acomparisonofcovariateadjustmentapproachesundermodelmisspecificationinindividuallyrandomizedtrials AT tackneymias comparisonofcovariateadjustmentapproachesundermodelmisspecificationinindividuallyrandomizedtrials AT morristim comparisonofcovariateadjustmentapproachesundermodelmisspecificationinindividuallyrandomizedtrials AT whiteian comparisonofcovariateadjustmentapproachesundermodelmisspecificationinindividuallyrandomizedtrials AT leyratclemence comparisonofcovariateadjustmentapproachesundermodelmisspecificationinindividuallyrandomizedtrials AT diazordazkarla comparisonofcovariateadjustmentapproachesundermodelmisspecificationinindividuallyrandomizedtrials AT williamsonelizabeth comparisonofcovariateadjustmentapproachesundermodelmisspecificationinindividuallyrandomizedtrials |