Weaknesses of goodness-of-fit tests for evaluating propensity score models: The case of th omitted confounder

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 227-238

  Weitzen, Sherry ^a,b   Lapane, Kate L ^a   Toledano, Alicia Y ^a   Hume, Anne L ^a,c   Mor, Vincent ^a  

^a BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Division of Research Women and Infants Hospital   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

C statistic; Goodness of fit; Logistic regression; Propensity score; Residual confounding

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS GRAFT; CORONARY ARTERY RECANALIZATION; DATA ANALYSIS; GOODNESS OF FIT TEST; HUMAN; HYPERTENSION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTERNAL MAMMARY ARTERY; ISCHEMIC HEART DISEASE; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MORTALITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROPENSITY SCORE; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); HUMANS; HYPERTENSION; LOGISTIC MODELS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PROGNOSIS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

EID: 17244379268     PISSN: 10538569     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pds.986     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Robins JM, Mark SD, Newey WK. Estimating exposure effects by modelling the expectation of exposure conditional on confounders. Biometrics 1992; 48: 479-495.
2. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70: 41-55.
3. D'Agostino RB, Jr. Tutorial in biostatistics: propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med 1998; 17: 2265-2281.
4. Rubin DB. Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 757-763.
5. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J Am Star Assoc 1984; 79: 516-524.
6. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Am Statistician 1985; 39: 33-38.
7. Drake C. Effects of misspecification of the propensity score on estimators of treatment effect. Biometrics 1993; 49: 1231-1236.
8. Wang J, Donnan PT. Propensity score methods in drug safety studies: practice, strengths and limitations. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Safe 2001; 10: 341-344.
9. Weitzen S, Lapane KL, Toledano AY, Hume AL, Mor V. Principles for modeling propensity scores in medical research: a systematic literature review. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Safe 2004; (in press).
10. Hosmer DL, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression. John Wiley and Sons: New York, 2000.
11. Hosmer DW, Hosmer T, Le Cessie S, Lemeshow S. A comparison of goodness of fit tests for the logistic regression model. Stat Med 1997; 16: 965-980.
12. Pulkstenis E, Robinson TJ. Two goodness-of-fit tests for logistic regression models with continuous covariates. Stat Med 2002; 21: 79-93.
13. Miller M, Hui SL, Tierney WM. Validation techniques for logistic regression models. Stat Med 1991; 10: 1213-1226.
14. Margolis D, Bilder W, Boston R, Localio R, Berlin JA. Statistical characteristics of area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for a simple prognostic model using traditional and bootstrapped approaches. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55: 518-524.
15. Harrell FE, Jr, Lee KL, Califf RM, Pryor DB, Rosati RA. Regression modelling strategies for improved prognostic prediction. Stat Med 1984; 3: 143-152.
16. Hosmer DW, Taber S, Lemeshow S. The importance of assessing the fit of logistic regression models: a case study. Am J Public Health 1991; 81: 1630-1635.
17. Feinstein A. Multivariable Analysis: An Introduction. Yale University Press: New Haven, 1996.
18. Bagley SC, White H, Golomb BA. Logistic regression in the medical literature: standards for use and reporting, with particular attention to one medical domain. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54: 979-985.
19. Harrell FE, Jr, Lee KL, Mark DB. Tutorial in biostatistics: multivariable prognostic models. Issues in developing models evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med 1996; 15: 361-387.
20. Harrell FE, Jr. Regression Modeling Strategies. Springer-Verlag: New York, 2001.
21. Ioannidis JP, Galanos O, Katritsis D, et al. Early mortality and morbidity of bilateral versus single internal thoracic artery revascularization: propensity and risk modeling. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001; 37: 521-528.
22. Greenland S. Model and variable selection in epidemiologic analysis. Am J Public Health 1989; 79: 340-349.
23. Bertolini G, D'Amico R, Nardi D, Tinazzi A, Apolone G. One model, several results: the paradox of the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test for the logistc regression model. J Epidemiol Biostat 2000; 5: 251-253.
24. Braitman L, Rosenbaum PR. Rare outcomes, common treatments: analytic strategies using propensity scores (editorial). Ann Intern Med 2002; 137: 693-696.
25. Joffe MM, Rosenbaum PR. Invited commentary: propensity scores. Am J Epidemiol 1999; 150: 327-333.
26. Connors A, Speroff T, Dawson NV, et al. The effectiveness of right heart catheterization in the initial care of critically ill patients. SUPPORT Investigators. JAMA 1996; 276 889-897.
27. Heckman J, Ichimura H, Todd PE. Matching as an economic evaluation estimator: evidence from evaluating a job training programme. Rev Econ Stud 1997; 64: 605-654.
28. Radford MJ, Foody JM. How do observational studies expand the evidence base for therapy? JAMA 2001; 286: 1228-1230.
29. Cepeda MS, Boston R, Farrar JT, Strom BL. Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders. Am J Epidemiol 2003; 158 280-287.
30. Hahn J. The role of the propensity score in efficient semiparametric estimation of average treatment effects. Econometrica 1998; 66: 315-331.
31. Michels K. Hormone replacement therapy in epidemiologic studies and randomized clinical trials - are we checkmate? Epidemiology 2003; 14: 3-5.