Comparing treatment effects after adjustment with multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression and propensity score methods

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 1-8

  Martens, Edwin P ^a,b   De Boer, Anthonius ^a   Pestman, Wiebe R ^b   Belitser, Svetlana V ^a   Stricker, Bruno H Ch ^c   Klungel, Olaf H ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Confounding; Cox proportional hazards models; Hypertension; Observational studies; Propensity scores

Indexed keywords

ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENT;

ADULT; ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COVARIANCE; FEMALE; HAZARD RATIO; HUMAN; HYPERTENSION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NETHERLANDS; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROPENSITY SCORE METHOD; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SIMULATION; STROKE;

ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENTS; CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; HYPERTENSION; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; OBSERVATION; OBSERVER VARIATION; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RISK FACTORS; STROKE;

EID: 38649130224     PISSN: 10538569     EISSN: 10991557     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pds.1520     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Cox DR. Regression models and life tables. J Royal Stat Society 1972; B34: 187-220.
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. Star Med 1998; 17: 2265-2281.
4. 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.
5. Petersen LA, Normand SL, Daley J, McNeil BJ. Outcome of myocardial infarction in Veterans Health Administration patients as compared with medicare patients. N Engl J Med. 2000; 343 (26): 1934-1941.
6. Wijeysundera DN, Beattie WS, Rao V, Ivanov J, Karkouti K. Calcium antagonists are associated with reduced mortality after cardiac surgery: a propensity analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2004; 127 (3): 755-762.
7. Klungel OH, Stricker BH, Breteler MM, Seidell JC, Psaty BM, de Boer A. Is drug treatment of hypertension in clinical practice as effective as in randomized controlled trials with regard to the reduction of the incidence of stroke? Epidemiology 2001; 12: 339-344.
8. Hauck WW, Anderson S, Marcus SM. Should we adjust for covariates in nonlinear regression analyses of randomized trials? Control Clin Trials 1998; 19 (3): 249-256. Review.
9. Therneau TM, Grambsch PM. Modeling survival data, extending the Cox model. Springer-Verlag, New York: 2000.
10. Peduzzi P, Concato J, Feinstein AR, Holford TR. Importance of events per independent variable in proportional hazards regression analysis. II. Accuracy and precision of regression estimates. J Clin Epidemiol 1995; 48 (12): 1503-1510.
11. Weitzen S, Lapane KL, Toledano AY, Hume AL, Mor V. Weaknesses of goodness-of-fit tests for evaluating propensity score models: the case of the omitted confounder. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2005; 14 (4): 227-238.
12. Rubin DB. Editorial: On principles for modeling propensity scores in medical research. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2004; 13 (12): 855-857.
13. Drake C. Effects of misspecification of the propensity score on estimators of treatment effect. Biometrics 1993; 49: 1231-1236.
14. Weitzen S, Lapane KL, Toledano AY, Hume AL, Mor V. Principles for modeling propensity scores in medical research: a systematic literature review. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2004; 13 (12): 841-853.
15. A SAS-macro is available on http://www2.sas.com/proceedings/sugi26/ p2l4-26.pdf
16. Rosenbaum PR. Observational studies: Springer-Verlag, New York. 2002.
17. Cochran WG. The effectiveness of adjustment by subclassification in removing bias in observational studies. Biometrics 1968; 24: 205-213.
18. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score, JAMA 1984; 387: 516-524.