Choosing propensity score matching over regression adjustment for causal inference: When, why and how it makes sense

Journal of Medical Economics

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 379-391

  Baser, Onur ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Propensity score matching; Randomisation; Regression; Treatment effect

Indexed keywords

TRIPTAN DERIVATIVE;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRUG COST; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIGRAINE; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SCORING SYSTEM; STATISTICAL MODEL;

EID: 38149094264     PISSN: 13696998     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3111/13696990701646577     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Baser O. Too much ado about propensity score models? Comparing methods of propensity score matching. Value in Health 2006; 9: 377-385.
2. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70: 41.
3. Cochran WG, Rubin DB. Controlling bias in observational studies: a review. Sankhya 1973; 35: 417-446.
4. Rubin DB. Using propensity scores to help design observational studies: application to the tobacco litigation. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology 2001; 2: 169-188.
5. Rubin DB. Inference and missing data. Biometrika 1976; 63: 581.
6. Rubin DB. Estimating Causal Effects from Large Data Sets Using Propensity Scores. Philadelphia, PA: The American College of Physicians, 1997.
7. Rubin DB, William G. Cochran's contributions to the design, analysis, and evaluation of observational studies. In: Rao SRS, Sedransk J, Editors. W. G. Cochran's Impact on Statistics. New York, NY: John Wiley 1984; 37-69.
8. Stürmer T, Joshi M, Glynn RJ et al. A review of the application of propensity score methods yielded increasing use, advantages in specific settings, but not substantially different estimates compared with conventional multivariable methods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2006; 59: 437e1-437e24.
9. Glynn RJ, Schneeweiss S, Wang PS et al. Selective prescribing led to overestimation of the benefits of lipid-lowering drugs. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2006; 59: 819-828.
10. Gu XS, Rosenbaum PR. Comparison of multivariate matching methods: structures, distances, and algorithms. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 1993; 2: 405-420.
11. Harrell FE Jr, Lee KL, Mark DB. Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Statistics in Medicine 1996; 15: 361-387.
12. Cepeda MS. Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders. American Journal of Epidemiology 2003; 158: 280-287.
13. King G, Zeng L. Logistic regression in rare events data. Political Analysis 2001; 9: 137.
14. Cochran WG. Analysis of covariance: its nature and uses. Biometrics 1957; 13: 261-281.
15. Carpenter RG. Matching when covariables are normally distributed. Biometrika 1977; 64: 299.
16. Rubin DB. Assignment to treatment group on the basis of a covariate. Journal of Educational Statistics 1977; 2: 1-26.
17. Rubin DB. Using multivariate matched sampling and regression adjustment to control bias in observational studies. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1979; 74: 318-328.
18. Weitzen S, Lapane KL, Toledano AY et al. Principles for modeling propensity scores in medical research: a systematic literature review. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 2004; 13: 841-853.
19. Shah BR, Laupacis A, Hux JE et al. Propensity score methods gave similar results to traditional regression modeling in observational studies: a systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2005; 58: 550-559.
20. Fu AZ, Dow WH, Liu GG. Propensity score and difference-in-difference methods: a study of second-generation antidepressant use in patients with bipolar disorder. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology 2007; 7: 23-38.
21. Austin PC, Mamdani MM. A comparison of propensity score methods: a case-study estimating the effectiveness of post-AMI statin use. Statistics in Medicine 2006; 25: 2084-2106.
22. Austin PC. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios. Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26: 3078-3094.
23. Wooldridge J. Inverse Probability Weighted Estimation for General Missing Data Problems. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, 2006.
24. Wooldridge JM. Introductory Econometrics: a modern approach, 3rd edn. Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western, 2006.
25. Wooldridge JM. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002.
26. D'Agostino RB, Belanger A, D'Agostino RB Jr. A suggestion for using powerful and informative tests of normality. The American Statistician 1990; 44: 316-321.
27. Royston B. sg3.5: comment on sg3.4 and an improved D'Agostino test. Stata Technical Bulletin 1991; 3: 23-24.
28. Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E et al. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1996; 49: 1373-1379.
29. Hoel PG. Introduction to Mathematical Statistics: New York, NY: J. Wiley, 1947.
30. Pagano M, Gauvreau K. Principles of Biostatistics. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Press, 2000.
31. Baser O. Propensity score matching with limited overlap. Economics Bulletin 2007; 9: 1-8.
32. Crump RK, Hotz VJ, Imbens GW et al. Moving the Goalposts: addressing limited overlap in the estimation of average treatment effects by changing the estimand. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2006.
33. Baser O, Crown WH, Pollicino C. Guidelines for selecting among different types of bootstraps. Current Medical Research and Opinion 2006; 22: 799-808.
34. Normand SLT, Landrum MB, Guadagnoli E et al. Validating recommendations for coronary angiography following acute myocardial infarction in the elderly: a matched analysis using propensity scores. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2001; 54: 387-398.
35. Manning WG, Mullahy J. Estimating log models: to transform or not to transform? Journal of Health Economics 2001; 20: 461-494.
36. Cook EF, Goldman L. Performance of tests of significance based on stratification by a multivariate confounder score or by a propensity score. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1989; 42: 317-324.
37. Stukel TA, Fisher ES, Wennberg DE et al. Analysis of observational studies in the presence of treatment selection bias: effects of invasive cardiac management on AMI survival using propensity score and instrumental variable methods. Journal of the American Medical Association 2007; 297: 278.
38. Rosenbaum PR. Observational Studies. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, 2002.
39. Newhouse JP, McClellan M. Econometrics in outcomes research: the use of instrumental variables. Annual Review of Public Health 1998; 19: 17-34.