Table 4.
Summary table of the traditional versus robust causal inference approach
| Estimand | Method | Complete cases in A | Complete cases in (A, C) | Imputation for (A, C) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimate (95% CI) | P | Estimate (95% CI) | P | Estimate (95% CI) | P | ||
| Raw marginal risk difference (unadjusted) | Regression | − 1.06% (− 3.23 to 1.11) | 0.337 | − 2.25% (− 4.65 to 0.15) | 0.067 | − 1.03% (− 3.22 to 1.14) | 0.354 |
| Marginal causal risk difference (ATU) | Regression + G-computation | – | – | − 2.48% (− 4.80 to − 0.15) | 0.037 | − 1.46% (− 3.58 to 0.66) | 0.178 |
| TMLE + super learner | – | – | − 1.52% (− 3.85 to 0.81) | 0.201 | − 0.59% (− 2.77 to 1.60) | 0.599 | |
With A = obesity and C = age, sex, ethnicity, income, smoking status, alcohol consumption, physical activity, hypothyroidism, chronic glucocorticoid therapy, solid malignancy, hematological malignancy, dementia, human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, calendar time
ATU average treatment effect in the untreated, CI confidence interval, TMLE targeted maximum likelihood estimation