Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ATE with negative sign when using "teffects". Where am I getting confused?

    Dear all, I have a question regarding an observational study I analyzed a few years ago and reanalyzed recently.

    I thank you in advance for your time.

    I want to investigate whether there are differences in efficacy between men and women in a cohort of patients. There is no specific treatment; patients simply attend my outpatient clinic. The outcome I'm examining is the post-pre variation in Neuropathic pain, measured as a continuous outcome (lower values are better).

    The first analysis I performed was a multivariable model in which the effect of the "sex" variable was adjusted through manual backward selection, and the model was selected based on AUC and Akaike Criteria.

    In my final model (see below), I observed that men had a coefficient of +0.37, indicating they went worse than women (as a more negative delta is considered better).

    Code:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    |               Robust
           deltaNRS | Coefficient  std. err.      t    P>|t|     [95% conf. interval]
    ----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
              1.sex |    .374365   .3611812     1.04   0.301    -.3387997     1.08753
                DN4 |    .281132   .1225688     2.29   0.023     .0391157    .5231484
    CARDIOVASCOLARI |   .4990604   .3565306     1.40   0.163    -.2049216    1.203042
      PSICHIATRICHE |   .8165899   .4646979     1.76   0.081    -.1009722    1.734152
       BUPRENORFINA |   1.531804   .6156641     2.49   0.014     .3161538    2.747454
            CODEINA |   .6894478   .3850612     1.79   0.075    -.0708688    1.449764
          TRAMADOLO |   .9433767   .4287724     2.20   0.029     .0967508    1.790003
              Ozono |  -1.141873   .3753492    -3.04   0.003    -1.883012   -.4007327
         NRSentrata |  -.3709376   .1254566    -2.96   0.004     -.618656   -.1232193
              _cons |  -2.015001   1.160065    -1.74   0.084    -4.305588    .2755868
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The margins at means are provided below.

    Code:
    . margins sex, vce(unconditional) atmeans
    
    Adjusted predictions                                       Number of obs = 174
    
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 |            Unconditional
                 |     Margin   std. err.      t    P>|t|     [95% conf. interval]
    -------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
             sex |
              0  |  -3.425054   .2091705   -16.37   0.000    -3.838068   -3.012039
              1  |  -3.050689    .287412   -10.61   0.000    -3.618194   -2.483184
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For the second analysis, I constructed the best model to predict "sex" and used it to calculate a Propensity score for "being male." The propensity score-adjusted sex effect was 0.385, which was nearly the same as the multivariable regression model.

    Yesterday, I applied the same propensity score model using the command "teffects psmatch," and I obtained an ATE of -0.389.

    Code:
    . teffects psmatch ( deltaNRS ) (sex Fumo i.Diagnosi NEUROLOGICHE REUMATOLOGICHE ORTOPEDICHE UROLOGICHE BUPRENORFINA OSSICODONE Altrotrattamento, lo
    > git) if ID!=154 & ID!=176
    
    Treatment-effects estimation                   Number of obs      =        174
    Estimator      : propensity-score matching     Matches: requested =          1
    Outcome model  : matching                                     min =          1
    Treatment model: logit                                        max =          8
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 |              AI robust
        deltaNRS | Coefficient  std. err.      z    P>|z|     [95% conf. interval]
    -------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
    ATE          |
             sex |
       (1 vs 0)  |  -.3886426   .9014637    -0.43   0.666    -2.155479    1.378194
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    So, while the magnitude is the same, the sign is inverse. I'm now wondering if this analysis is yielding an opposite conclusion compared to the two previous analyses, or if the result is essentially the same, and the negative sign is appropriate.

    Where am I getting confused?

    Gianfranco






Working...
X