The concept of the marginally matched subject in propensity-score matched analyses

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety

Volumn 18, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 469-482

  Austin, Peter C ^a,b   Lee, Douglas S ^a,c,d  

^a INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL EVALUATIVE SCIENCES   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Acute myocardial infarction; Congestive heart failure; Matching; Observational studies; Propensity score; Propensity score matching

Indexed keywords

BETA ADRENERGIC RECEPTOR BLOCKING AGENT; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL COENZYME A REDUCTASE INHIBITOR;

ACUTE HEART INFARCTION; ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; CONGESTIVE HEART FAILURE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIASTOLIC BLOOD PRESSURE; DRUG EXPOSURE; DRUG USE; HEART FAILURE; HEART RATE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MORTALITY; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; PROPENSITY SCORE MATCHING; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SYSTOLIC BLOOD PRESSURE; ALGORITHM; BIOMETRY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HEART INFARCTION; METHODOLOGY; OBSERVATION; PATIENT SELECTION; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ADRENERGIC BETA-ANTAGONISTS; ALGORITHMS; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); BIOMETRY; CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HEART FAILURE; HUMANS; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL-COA REDUCTASE INHIBITORS; MATCHED-PAIR ANALYSIS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; OBSERVATION; PATIENT SELECTION;

EID: 68149123583     PISSN: 10538569     EISSN: 10991557     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pds.1733     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70: 41-55.
2. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J Am Stat Assoc 1984; 79: 516-524.
3. Austin PC, Mamdani MM, Stukel TA, Anderson GM, Tu JV. The use of the propensity score for estimating treatment effects: administrative versus clinical data. Stat Med 2005; 24: 1563-1578.
4. Austin PC, Mamdani MM. A comparison of propensity score methods: a case-study estimating the effectiveness of post-AMI statin use. Stat Med 2006; 25: 2084-2106.
5. Austin PC. A critical appraisal of propensity score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003. Stat Med 2008; 27: 2037-2049.
6. Austin PC. Propensity-score matching in the cardiovascular surgery literature from 2004 to 2006: a systematic review and suggestions for improvement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2007; 134: 1128-1135.
7. 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: 734-753.
8. Rosenbaum PR. Observational Studies. Springer-Verlag: New York, NY, 1995.
9. Tu JV, Donovan LR, Lee DS, et al. Quality of Cardiac Care in Ontario. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences: Toronto, Ontario, 2004.
10. Austin PC. A comparison of classification and regression trees, logistic regression, generalized additive models, and multivariate adaptive regression splines for predicting AMI mortality. Stat Med 2007; 26: 2937-2957.
11. Austin PC, Tu JV. Comparing clinical data with administrative data for producing AMI report cards. J R Stat Soc - Ser A (Stat Soc) 2006; 169: 115-126.
12. Austin PC, Mamdani MM, Juurlink DN, Alter DA, Tu JV. Missed opportunities in the secondary prevention of myocardial infarction: an assessment of the effects of statin underprescribing on mortality. Am Heart J 2006; 151: 969-975.
13. Austin PC, Tu JV. Automated variable selection methods for logistic regression produced unstable models for predicting acute myocardial infarction mortality. J Clin Epidemiol 2004; 57: 1138-1146.
14. Lee DS, Austin PC, Rouleau JL, Liu PP, Naimark D, Tu JV. Predicting mortality among patients hospitalized for heart failure: derivation and validation of a clinical model. J Am Med Assoc 2003; 290: 2581-2587.
15. Hansen BB. The prognostic analogue of the propensity score. Biometrika 2008; 95: 481-488.
16. Cochran WG, Rubin DB. Controlling bias in observational studies: a review. Sankhya Ser A 1973; 35: 417-446.
17. Flury BK, Riedwyl H. Standard distance in univariate and multivariate analysis. Am Stat 1986; 40: 249-251.
18. Austin PC, Grootendorst P, Normand SLT, 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: 754-768.
19. Austin PC. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios. Stat Med 2007; 26: 3078-3094.
20. Normand ST, Landrum MB, Guadagnoli E, et al. Validating recommendations for coronary angiography following acute myocardial infarction in the elderly: a matched analysis using propensity scores. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54: 387-398.
21. Rosenbaum PR. Model-based direct adjustment. J Am Stat 1987; 82: 387-394.
22. 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: 841-853.
23. Shah BR, Laupacis A, Hux JE, Austin PC. Propensity score methods give similar results to traditional regression modeling in observational studies: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2005; 58: 550-559.
24. Rubin DB. On principles for modeling propensity scores in medical research. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2004; 13: 885-887.