The relative ability of different propensity score methods to balance measured covariates between treated and untreated subjects in observational studies

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 29, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 661-677

  Austin, Peter C ^a,b  

^a INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL EVALUATIVE SCIENCES   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Balance; Confounding.; Covariate adjustment with the propensity score; Inverse probability of treatment weighting; Matching; Propensity score; Propensity score matching; Stratification on the propensity score

Indexed keywords

BETA ADRENERGIC RECEPTOR BLOCKING AGENT; DIPEPTIDYL CARBOXYPEPTIDASE INHIBITOR;

ARTICLE; EMPIRICISM; HEART FAILURE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MONTE CARLO METHOD; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PROBABILITY; PROPENSITY SCORE; SCORING SYSTEM;

ADRENERGIC BETA-ANTAGONISTS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANGIOTENSIN-CONVERTING ENZYME INHIBITORS; FEMALE; HEART FAILURE; HUMANS; MALE; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PROBABILITY;

EID: 72149119483     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X09341755     Document Type: Article

References (26)

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. Rosenbaum PR Model-based direct adjustment. Journal of the American Statistician. 1987 ; 82: 387-394.
4. Austin PC A critical appraisal of propensity score matching in the medical literature from 1996 to 2003. Stat Med. 2008 ; 27: 2037-2049.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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: 437-447.
10. Joffe MM, Ten Have TR, Feldman HI, Kimmel SE Model selection, confounder control, and marginal structural models: review and new applications. The American Statistician. 2004 ; 58: 272-279.
11. Lunceford JK, Davidian M. Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of causal treatment effects: a comparative study. Stat Med. 2004 ; 23: 2937-2960.
12. 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. JAMA. 2003 ; 290: 2581-2587.
13. Tu JV, Donovan LR, Lee DS, et al. Quality of Cardiac Care in Ontario. Toronto: Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences; 2004.
14. Flury BK, Riedwyl H. Standard distance in univariate and multivariate analysis. The American Statistician. 1986 ; 40: 249-251.
15. Austin PC Goodness-of-fit diagnostics for the propensity score model when estimating treatment effects using covariate adjustment with the propensity score. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2008 ; 17: 1202-1217.
16. 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.
17. 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.
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. Austin PC The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating relative risks. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 ; 61: 537-545.
21. Rubin DB Using propensity scores to help design observational studies: application to the tobacco litigation. Health Serv Outcomes Res Method. 2001 ; 2: 169-188.
22. Rubin DB On principles for modeling propensity scores in medical research. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2004 ; 13: 855-857.
23. 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.
24. Austin PC Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med. In press.
25. Cochran WG, Rubin DB Controlling bias in observational studies: a review. Sankhya Ser A. 1973 ; 35: 417-446.
26. 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.