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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tackney, Mia S., Morris, Tim, White, Ian, Leyrat, Clemence, Diaz-Ordaz, Karla, Williamson, Elizabeth
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