The performance of different propensity-score methods for estimating relative risks

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 61, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 537-545

  Austin, Peter C ^a,b  

^a INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL EVALUATIVE SCIENCES   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Bias; Matching; Monte Carlo simulations; Observational studies; Propensity score; Relative risk

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; COVARIANCE; MONTE CARLO METHOD; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCORING SYSTEM;

HUMANS; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL-COA REDUCTASE INHIBITORS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; RISK; SELECTION BIAS; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 43049162150     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.07.011     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Rosenbaum P.R., and Rubin D.B. Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J Am Stat Assoc 79 (1984) 516-524
2. Rosenbaum P.R., and Rubin D.B. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70 (1983) 41-55
3. Austin P.C., Mamdani M.M., Stukel T.A., Anderson G.M., and Tu J.V. The use of the propensity score for estimating treatment effects: administrative versus clinical data. Stat Med 24 (2005) 1563-1578
4. Austin P.C., and Mamdani M.M. A comparison of propensity score methods: a case-study estimating the effectiveness of post-AMI statin use. Stat Med 25 (2006) 2084-2106
5. Austin P.C., Grootendorst P., Normand S.L.T., and Anderson G.M. Conditioning on the propensity score can result in biased estimation of common measures of treatment effect: a Monte Carlo study. Stat Med 26 (2007) 754-768
6. Greenland S. Interpretation and choice of effect measures in epidemiologic analyses. Am J Epidemiol 125 (1987) 761-768
7. Gail M.H., Wieand S., and Piantadosi S. Biased estimates of treatment effect in randomized experiments with nonlinear regressions and omitted covariates. Biometrika 7 (1984) 431-444
8. Austin P.C. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios. Stat Med 26 (2007) 3078-3094
9. Weitzen S., Lapane K.L., Toledano A.Y., Hume A.L., and Mor V. Principles for modeling propensity scores in medical research: a systematic literature review. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 13 (2004) 841-853
10. Shah B.R., Laupacis A., Hux J.E., and Austin P.C. Propensity score methods give similar results to traditional regression modeling in observational studies: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 58 (2005) 550-559
11. Stürmer T., Joshi M., Glynn R.J., Avorn J., Rothman K.J., and Schneeweiss S. 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. J Clin Epidemiol 59 (2006) 437-447
12. Austin P.C., Grootendorst P., and Anderson G.M. A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study. Stat Med 26 (2007) 734-753
13. Rothman K.J., and Greenland S. Modern epidemiology (1998), Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA
14. Cochran W.G., and Rubin D.B. Controlling bias in observational studies: a review. Sankhya Series A 35 (1973) 417-446
15. Agresti A., and Min Y. Effects and non-effects of paired identical observations in comparing proportions with binary matched-pairs data. Stat Med 23 (2004) 65-75
16. Breslow N.E., and Day N.E. Statistical methods in cancer research. Volume II-The design and analysis of cohort studies (1987), International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon
17. McCullagh P., and Nelder J.A. Generalized linear models. 2nd edition (1983), Chapman & Hall, London
18. Cox D.R., and Hinkley D.V. Theoretical statistics (2000), Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL
19. R Core Development Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing (2005), R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna
20. SAS Version 9.1 (2002-2003), SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC
21. Tu J.V., Donovan L.R., Lee D.S., Austin P.C., Ko D.T., Wang J.T., et al. Quality of cardiac care in Ontario (2004), Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario
22. Austin P.C., Mamdani M.M., Juurlink D.N., Alter D.A., and Tu J.V. Missed opportunities in the secondary prevention of myocardial infarction: an assessment of the effects of statin underprescribing on mortality. Am Heart J 151 (2006) 969-975
23. Austin P.C., and Tu J.V. Comparing clinical data with administrative data for producing AMI report cards. J Royal Stat Soc-Series A (Stat Soc) 169 (2006) 115-126
24. Austin P.C. A comparison of classification and regression trees, logistic regression, generalized additive models, and multivariate adaptive regression splines for predicting AMI mortality. Stat Med 26 (2007) 2937-2957
25. Brookhart M.A., Schneeweiss S., Rothman K.J., Glynn R.J., Avorn J., and Sturmer T. Variable selection for propensity score models. Am J Epidemiol 163 (2006) 1149-1156
26. Newcombe R.G. A deficiency of the odds ratio as a measure of effect size. Stat Med 25 (2006) 4235-4240