Propensity score: Interest and limits;Le score de propension: Intérêt et limites

Bulletin du Cancer

Volumn 94, Issue 7-8, 2007, Pages 680-686

  Kwiatkowski, Fabrice ^a   Slim, Karem ^b   Verrelle, Pierre ^a   Chamorey, Emmanuel ^c   Kramar, Andrew ^d  

^a CENTRE JEAN PERRIN   (France)

^b HÔTEL DIEU   (France)

^c CENTRE ANTOINE LACASSAGNE   (France)

^d CRLC Val d'Aurelle Paul Lamarque

Author keywords

Bias; Confusion; Methodology; Observational studies; Propensity; Score; Statistics

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL RESEARCH; COLONOSCOPY; CONFUSION; HEALTH CARE; HUMAN; LAPAROTOMY; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; MORBIDITY; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; QUALITY OF LIFE; REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SURVIVAL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; PROBABILITY; THERAPEUTICS;

EID: 34548684812     PISSN: 00074551     EISSN: 17696917     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1684/bdc.2007.0412     Document Type: Review

References (16)

1. Winkelmayer W, Kurth T. Propensity scores : help or hype? Nephrol Dial Transplant 2004 ; 19 : 1671-3.
2. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983 ; 70 : 41-5.
3. Alves A, Panis Y, Slim K, Heyd B, Kwiatkowski F. Mantion G and the Association Française de Chirurgie. French multicentre prospective observational study of laparoscopic versus open colectomy for sigmoid diverticular disease. Br J Surg 2005 ; 92 : 1520-5.
4. Kwiatkowski F, Gachon F, Charrier S, Sancho-Garnier H, Kramar A. Decision making in biology : ROC analysis. Bull Cancer 1999 ; 86 : 787-9.
5. Austin P, Grootendorst P, Normand SL, Anderson G. Conditioning on the propensity score can result in biased estimation of common measures of treatment effect : a Monte Carlo study. Stat Med 2007 ; 26 : 754-68.
6. D'Agostino R. Propensity score methods for biais reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med 1998 ; 17 : 2265-81.
7. Soares P. Comparaison des résultats des patients ayant un cancer localisé de la prostate pNO traités par prostatectomie radicale ou par radiothérapie externe. Thèse de médecine, Université de Clermont-Ferrand, 2002.
8. Frigoletto F, Liberman E, Lang J, Cohen A, Barss V, Ringer S, et al. A clinical trial of active management of labor. N J Med 1995 ; 333 : 745-50.
9. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Am Stat 1985 ; 39 : 33-8.
10. Cochran W. The effectiveness of adjustment by subclassification in removing biais in observational studies. Biometrics 1968 ; 24 : 205-13.
11. Gail MH, Wieand S, Piantadosi S. Biased estimates of treatment effect in randomized experiment with nonlinear regressions and omitted covariates. Biometrika 1984 ; 7 : 431-44.
12. Weitzen S, Lapane K, Toledano A, Hume A, Mor V. Weaknesses of goodness-of-fit tests for evaluating propensity score models : the case of the omitted confounder. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2005 ; 14 : 227-38.
13. Adamina M, Guller U, Weber WP, Oertli D. Propensity score and the surgeon. Br J Surg 2006 ; 93 : 389-94.
14. Cook EF, Goldman L. Performance of tests of significance based on stratification by a multivariate confounder or by a propensity score. J Clin Epidemiol 1989 ; 42 : 317-24.
15. Cepeda M, Boston R, Farrar J, Strom B. Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders. Am J Epidemiol 2003 ; 158 : 280-7.
16. Rubin DB. Estimating causal effects from large sets using propensity scores. Ann Intern Med 1997 ; 127 : 757-63.