Systematic differences in treatment effect estimates between propensity score methods and logistic regression

International Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 37, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 1142-1147

  Martens, Edwin P ^a,b   Pestman, Wiebe R ^b   de Boer, Anthonius ^a   Belitser, Svetlana V ^a   Klungel, Olaf H ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Adjusted treatment effect; Conditional treatment effect; Confounding; Logistic regression; Marginal treatment effect; Observational studies; Propensity scores

Indexed keywords

ESTIMATION METHOD; LOGISTICS; OBSERVATIONAL METHOD; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; INCIDENCE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; PROPENSITY SCORE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 53349127165     PISSN: 03005771     EISSN: 14643685     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyn079     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983;70 41-55.
2. 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. Stat Med 1998;17:2265-81.
3. Shah BR, Laupacis A, Hux JE, Austin PC. Propensity score methods gave similar results to traditional regression modeling in observational studies: A systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58 550-59.
4. Stürmer T, Joshi M, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Rothman KJ, 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 2006;59:437-47.
5. Gail MH, Wieand S, Piantadosi S. Biased estimates of treatment effect in randomized experiments with nonlinear regressions and omitted covariates. Hiometrika 1984;71:431-44. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/view/2336553.
6. Gail MH. The effect of pooling across strata in perfectly balanced studies. Biometrics 1988;44:151-63.
7. Robinson LD, Jewell NP. Some surprising results about covariate adjustment in logistic regression models. Int Stat Rev 1991;58 227-40.
8. Guo J, Geng Z. Collapsibility of logistic regression coefficients. J R Statist Soc B 1995;57:263-67.
9. Hauck WW, Neuhaus JM, Kalbfleisch JD et al. A consequence of omitted covariates when estimating odds ratios. J Clin Epidemiol 1991;44:77-81.
10. Hauck WW, Anderson S, Marcus SM. Should we adjust for covariates in nonlinear regression analyses of randomized trials? Control Clin Trials 1998;19:249-56.
11. Greenland S, Robins MR, Pearl J. Confounding and collapsibility in causal inference. Stat Science 1999;14:29-46.
12. Greenland S. Interpretation and choice of effect measures in epidemiologic analyses. Am J Epidemiol 1987;125:761-68.
13. Wickramaratne PJ, Holford ThR. Confounding in epidemiologic studies: The adequacy of the control group as a measure of confounding. Biometrics 1987;43:751-65, [Erratum, Biometrics 1989; 45:1039].
14. Bretagnolle J, Huber-Carol C. Effects of omitting covariates in Coxs model for survival data. Scand J Stat 1988;15:125-38.
15. Morgan TM, Lagakos SW, Schoenfeld DA. Omitting covariates from the proportional hazards model. Biometrics 1986;42:993-95.
16. Robins JM, Tsiatis AA. Correcting for non-compliance in randomized trials using rank preserving structural failure time models. Commun Statist-Theory Meth 1991;20:2609-31.
17. Rosenbaum PR. Propensity score. In: Armitage P, Colton T (eds). Encyclopedia of Biostatistics. Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley, 1998.
18. Austin PC, Grootendorst P, Normand ST, Anderson GM. 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.
19. Austin PC, Grootendorst P, Anderson GM. 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 2007; 26:734-53.
20. 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;158 280-87.
21. Negassa A, Hanley JA. The effect of omitted covariates on confidence interval and study power in binary outcome analysis: A simulation study. Cont Clin trials 2007;28: 242-48.
22. Austin PC. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios. Stat Med 2007;26:3078-94.
23. Martens EP, Pestman WR, Klungel OH. Letter to the editor: 'Conditioning on the propensity score can result in biased estimation of common measures of treatment effect: A Monte Carlo study, by Austin PC, Grootendorst P, Normand ST, Anderson GM'. Stat Med 2007;26 3208-10.
24. Silverman BW. Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis. London: Chapman and Hall, 1986.
25. Wand MP, Jones MC. Kernel Smooting. London, UK: Chapman and Hall, 1995.
26. Rubin DB. On principles for modeling propensity scores in medical research (Editorial). Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2004;13 855-57.
27. Rothwell PM. Subgroup analysis in randomised controlled trials: importance, indications, and interpretation. Lancet 2005;365 176-86.
28. Benson K, Hartz AJ. A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med 2000;342:1878-86.
29. Ioannidis JP, Haidich AB, Pappa M et al. Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies. JAMA 2001;286:821-30.
30. Kunz R, Oxman AD. The unpredictability paradox: Review of empirical comparisons of randomised and nonrandomised clinical trials. BMJ 1998;317:1185-90.
31. Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med 2000;342:1887-92.