Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 28, Issue 25, 2009, Pages 3083-3107

  Austin, Peter C ^a,b  

^a INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL EVALUATIVE SCIENCES   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Balance; Bias; Goodness of fit; Matching; Observational study; Propensity score; Propensity score matching; Standardized difference

Indexed keywords

HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL COENZYME A REDUCTASE INHIBITOR;

ACUTE HEART INFARCTION; ARTICLE; COVARIANCE; EFFECT SIZE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MONTE CARLO METHOD; NORMAL DISTRIBUTION; PROBABILITY; PROPENSITY SCORE MATCHING; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SAMPLE SIZE; SAMPLING; SIMULATION; STANDARDIZATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION; STATISTICAL MODEL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

AGED; BIOMETRY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL-COA REDUCTASE INHIBITORS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; PROPENSITY SCORE;

EID: 70449365700     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.3697     Document Type: Article

References (47)

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. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1984; 79:516-524.
3. 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.
4. Weitzen S, Lapane KL, Toledano AY, Hume AL, Mor V. Principles for modeling propensity scores in medical research: a systematic literature review. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 2004; 13:841-853. (Pubitemid 40003819)
5. Shah BR, Laupacis A, Hux JE, Austin PC. Propensity score methods give similar results to traditional regression modeling in observational studies: a systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2005; 58:550-559. (Pubitemid 40692720)
6. 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. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2006; 59:437-447. (Pubitemid 44316748)
7. Austin PC. A critical appraisal of propensity score matching in the medical literature from 1996 to 2003. Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27:2037-2049.
8. Austin PC. Propensity-score matching in the cardiovascular surgery literature from 2004 to 2006: a systematic review and suggestions for improvement. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2007; 134:1128-1135.
9. Austin PC. A report card on propensity-score matching in the cardiology literature from 2004 to 2006: results of a systematic review. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes 2008; 1:62-67.
10. 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.
11. Rubin DB. On principles for modeling propensity scores in medical research. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 2004; 13:855-857.
12. Ho DE, Imai K, King G, Stuart EA. Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political Analysis 2007; 15:199-236.
13. 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. American Heart Journal 2006; 151:969-975.
14. Austin PC, Tu JV. Comparing clinical data with administrative data for producing AMI report cards. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society - Series A (Statistics in Society) 2006; 169:115-126.
15. Austin PC. A comparison of classification and regression trees, logistic regression, generalized additive models, and multivariate adaptive regression splines for predicting AMI mortality. Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26:2937-2957.
16. Tu JV, Donovan LR, Lee DS, Austin PC, Ko DT, Wang JT, Newman AM. Quality of Cardiac Care in Ontario. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences: Toronto, Ontario, 2004.
17. 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. Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26:734-753. (Pubitemid 46206593)
18. Austin PC. Some methods of propensity-score matching had superior performance to others: results of an empirical investigation and Monte Carlo simulations. Biometrical Journal 2009; 51:171-184.
19. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D for the CONSORT Group. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Journal of the American Medical Association 2001; 285:1787-1991. (Pubitemid 32366951)
20. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, Gotzsche PC, Lang T for the CONSORT Group. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine 2001; 134:663-694. (Pubitemid 32322245)
21. Flury BK, Riedwyl H. Standard distance in univariate and multivariate analysis. The American Statistician 1986; 40:249-251.
22. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician 1985; 39:33-38.
23. Normand SLT, Landrum MB, Guadagnoli E, Ayanian JZ, Ryan TJ, Cleary PD, McNeil BJ. Validating recommendations for coronary angiography following an acute myocardial infarction in the elderly: a matched analysis using propensity scores. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2001; 54:387-398. (Pubitemid 32303462)
24. Ahmed A, Perry GJ, Fleg JL, Love TE, Goff Jr DC, Kitzman DW. Outcomes in ambulatory chronic systolic and diastolic heart failure: a propensity score analysis. American Heart Journal 2006; 152:956-966. (Pubitemid 44632948)
25. Ahmed A, Husain A, Love TE, Gambassi G, Dell'Italia LJ, Francis GS, Gheorghiade M, Allman RM, Meleth S, Bourge RC. Heart failure, chronic diuretic use, and increase in mortality and hospitalization: an observational study using propensity score methods. European Heart Journal 2006; 27:1431-1439. (Pubitemid 43998077)
26. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd edn). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers: Hillsdale, NJ, 1988.
27. Hedges LV, Olkin I. Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. Academic Press: San Diego, CA, 1985.
28. Austin PC. Type I error rates, coverage of confidence intervals, and variance estimation in propensity-score matched analyses. The International Journal of Biostatistics 2009; 5(1):Article 13.
29. Imai K, King G, Stuart EA. Misunderstandings between experimentalists and observationalists about causal inference. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A (Statistics in Society) 2008; 171:481-502.
30. Rosner B. Fundamentals of Biostatistics (4th edn). Duxbury Press: Belmont, CA, 1995.
31. Harrell Jr FE. Regression Modeling Strategies. Springer: New York, NY, 2001.
32. Hoaglin DC, Mosteller F, Tukey JW. Understanding Robust and Exploratory Data Analysis. Wiley: New York, NY, 1983.
33. Casella G, Berger RL. Statistical Inference. Duxbury Press: Belmont, CA, 1990.
34. 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. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 2005; 14:227-238. (Pubitemid 40528852)
35. Senn S. Testing for baseline balance in clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine 1994; 13:1715-1726. (Pubitemid 24284854)
36. Senn SJ. Covariate imbalance and random allocation in clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine 1989; 8:467-475.
37. Altman DG, Dore CJ. Baseline comparisons in randomized clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine 1991; 10:797-802.
38. Lavori PW, Louis TA, Bailar III JC, Polansky M. Designs for experiments - parallel comparisons of treatment. New England Journal of Medicine 1983; 309:1291-1298. (Pubitemid 14201585)
39. Gail MH, Wieand S, Piantadosi S. Biased estimates of treatment effect in randomized experiments with nonlinear regressions and omitted covariates. Biometrika 1984; 7:431-444.
40. Austin PC, Zwarenstein M, Manca A, Juurlink DN, Stanbrook MB. Handling of baseline covariates in randomized controlled trials: a review of trials published in leading medical journals. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.002.
41. Sackett DL. Down with odds ratios! for publication. Evidence-Based Medicine 1996; 1:164-166.
42. Newcombe RG. A deficiency of the odds ratio as a measure of effect size. Statistics in Medicine 2006; 25:4235-4240. (Pubitemid 46023768)
43. Schechtman E. Odds ratio, relative risk, absolute risk reduction, and the number needed to treat - which of these should we use? Value in Health 2002; 5:431-436.
44. Cook RJ, Sackett DL. The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. British Medical Journal 1995; 310:452-454.
45. Jaeschke R, Guyatt G, Shannon H, Walter S, Cook D, Heddle N. Basis statistics for clinicians 3: assessing the effects of treatment: measures of association. Canadian Medical Association Journal 1995; 152:351-357.
46. Sinclair JC, Bracken MB. Clinically useful measures of effect in binary analyses of randomized trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1994; 47:881-889.
47. Austin PC. Assessing balance in baseline covariates when using many-to-one matching on the propensity-score. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 2008; 17:1218-1225.