In light of newly developed standardization methods, we evaluate, via simulation study, how inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and standardization-based approaches compare for obtaining estimates of the marginal odds-ratio and the marginal hazards ratio. Specifically, we consider how the two approaches compare in two different scenarios: (1) in a single comparative study (either randomized or non-randomized), and (2) in an anchored indirect treatment comparison of randomized controlled trials (where we compare the matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) and simulated treatment comparison (STC) methods). We conclude that, in general, standardization-based methods with correctly specified outcome models are more efficient than those based on IPTW. While IPTW is robust to model misspecification in a single comparative study, we find that this is not necessarily the case for MAIC in an indirect treatment comparison.

翻译：鉴于新近发展的标准化方法，我们通过模拟研究评估了逆概率治疗加权（IPTW）与基于标准化的方法在获取边际比值比和边际风险比估计值方面的比较。具体而言，我们考虑这两种方法在两种不同场景下的比较：（1）单个比较性研究（随机或非随机），以及（2）基于锚定的随机对照试验间接治疗比较（其中我们比较了匹配调整间接比较（MAIC）和模拟治疗比较（STC）方法）。我们得出结论：总体而言，具有正确指定的结局模型的标准化方法比基于IPTW的方法更有效。尽管IPTW在单个比较性研究中对模型错误指定具有稳健性，但我们发现这并不一定适用于间接治疗比较中的MAIC。