Reduction of sampling bias of odds ratios for vertebral fractures using propensity scores

Osteoporosis International

Volumn 17, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 507-520

  Lu, Y ^a,b   Jin, H ^a   Chen, M H ^a   Gluer C C ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b SOUTH CHINA NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

^c UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL SCHLESWIG HOLSTEIN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Bias correction; Osteoporosis; Propensity score; Spine fracture; Weighted logistic regression

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BODY MASS; BODY WEIGHT; CASE CONTROL STUDY; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; DISEASE SIMULATION; DUAL ENERGY X RAY ABSORPTIOMETRY; ECHOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HIP; HIP MALFORMATION; HUMAN; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ASSAY; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; SAMPLING ERROR; SCORING SYSTEM; SPINE; STANDARDIZATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; VERTEBRA FRACTURE; VERTEBRA MALFORMATION;

ADULT; AGED; BONE DENSITY; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES; FEMALE; FRANCE; GERMANY; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MIDDLE AGED; ODDS RATIO; OSTEOPOROSIS; SELECTION BIAS; SPINAL FRACTURES;

EID: 33645218374     PISSN: 0937941X     EISSN: 14332965     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-005-0021-x     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Cummings S, Black D, Nevitt M, Browner W, Cauley J, Ensrud K, et al (1993) Bone density at various sites for prediction of hip fractures: the study of osteoporotic fractures. Lancet 341:72-75
2. Glüer C, Eastell R, Reid D, Felsenberg D, Roux C, Barkmann R, et al (2005) Risk assessment and fracture discrimination by ultrasound: the debate continues. J Bone Miner Res 20(3):539-540
3. Genant H, Wu C, van Kuijk C, Nevitt M (1993) Vertebral fracture assessment using a semiquantitative technique. J Bone Miner Res 8(9):1137-4118
4. Black DPL, Nevitt MC, Genant HK, Christensen L, Cummings SR (1999) Defining incident vertebral deformity: a prospective comparison of several approaches. The study of osteoporotic fractures research group. J Bone Miner Res 14(1):90-101
5. Glüer CC, Eastell R, Reid DM, Felsenberg D, Roux C, Barkmannl R, et al (2004) Association of five quantitative ultrasound devices and bone densitometry with osteoporotic vertebral fractures in a population-based sample: the OPUS study. J Bone Miner Res 9(5):782-793
6. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70(1):41-55
7. Imbens GW (2000) The role of the propensity score in estimating dose-response functions. Biometrika 87:706-710
8. Newgard C, Hedges J, Arthur M, Mullins R (2004) Advanced statistics: the propensity score - a method for estimating treatment effect in observational research. Acad Emerg Med 11(9): 953-961
9. Cepeda M, Boston R, Farrar J, Strom B (2003) Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders. Am J Epidemiol 158(3):280-287
10. D'Agostino RB Jr (1998) Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med 17(19):2265-2281
11. Bartholomew B, Harjai K, Dukkipati S, Boura J, Yerkey M, Glazier S, et al (2004) Impact of nephropathy after percutaneous coronary intervention and a method for risk stratification. Am J Cardiol 93(12):1515-1519
12. Lunceford J, Davidian M (2004) Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of causal treatment effects: a comparative study. Stat Med 23(19):2937-2960
13. Seeger J, Williams P, Walker A (2005) An application of propensity score matching using claims data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 14:465-476
14. Weitzen S, Lapane K, Toledano A, Hume A, Mor V (2005) Weaknesses of goodness - of - fit tests for evaluating propensity score models: the case of the omitted confounder. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 14:227-238