Estimators and confidence intervals for the marginal odds ratio using logistic regression and propensity score stratification

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 29, Issue 7-8, 2010, Pages 760-769

  Stampf, Susanne ^a,b   Graf, Erika ^b   Schmoor, Claudia ^b   Schumacher, Martin ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Marginal odds ratio; Propensity score; Stratification

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MANTEL HAENSZEL TEST; MATHEMATICAL PARAMETERS; SCORING SYSTEM; SIMULATION;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); BIOSTATISTICS; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; FEMALE; GERMANY; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMANS; INFANT; INFANT, NEWBORN; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; ODDS RATIO; PROPENSITY SCORE; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESPIRATORY SYNCYTIAL VIRUS INFECTIONS; RESPIRATORY TRACT INFECTIONS;

EID: 77949408623     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.3811     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Shah B, Laupacis A, Hux J, Austin P. Propensity score methods gave similar results to traditional regression modeling in observational studies: a systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2005; 58(6):550-559.
2. Stürmer T, Joshi M, Glynn R, Avorn J, Rothman K, 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(5):437-461.
3. Rosenbaum P, Rubin D. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70(1):41-55.
4. Gail M, Wieand S, Piantadosi S. Biased estimates of treatment effect in randomized experiments with nonlinear regressions and omitted covariates. Biometrika 1984; 71(3):431-444.
5. Austin P, Grootendorst P, Normand S, Anderson G. Conditioning on the propensity score can result in biased estimation of common measures of treatment effect: a Monte Carlo study. Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26:754-768.
6. Austin P. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios. Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26(16): 3078-3094.
7. Graf E, Schumacher M. Letter to the editor: comments on the performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios. Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27(19):3915-3917.
8. Forbes A, Shortreed S. Letter to the editor: inverse probability weighted estimation of the marginal odds ratio: correspondence regarding 'the performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios'. Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27(26):5556-5559.
9. Woolf B. On estimating the relation between blood group and disease. Annals of Human Genetics 1955; 19:251-253.
10. Oehlert G. A note on the delta method. The American Statistician 1992; 46(1):27-29.
11. Hernan M, Robins J. Estimating causal effects from epidemiological data. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2006; 60:578-586.
12. Mantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1959; 22(4):719-748.
13. Breslow N, Day N. Statistical Methods in Cancer Research, Volume 1-The Analysis of Case-Control Studies. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC Scientific Publications No. 32): Lyon, 1980.
14. Robins J, Greenland S, Breslow N. Estimators of the Mantel-Haenszel variance consistent in both sparse and large-strata limiting models. Biometrics 1986; 42(2):311-323.
15. Robins J, Greenland S, Breslow N. A general estimator for the variance of the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio. American Journal of Epidemiology 1986; 124(5):719-723.
16. Lumley T. Analysis of complex survey samples. Journal of Statistical Software 2004; 9(1):1-19.
17. Zeileis A. Object-oriented computation of sandwich estimators. Journal of Statistical Software 2006; 16(9):1-16.
18. R Development Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2009. Available from: http://www.R-project.org, ISBN: 3-900051-07-0.
19. Forster J, Ihorst G, Rieger CH, Stephan V, Frank HD, Gurth H, Berner R, Rohwedder A, Werchau H, Schumacher M, Tsai T, Petersen G. Prospective population-based study of viral lower respiratory tract infections in children under 3 years of age (the pri.de study). European Journal of Pediatrics 2004; 163(12):709-716.
20. Kang J, Schafer J. Demystifying double robustness: a comparison of alternative strategies for estimating a population mean from incomplete data. Statistical Science 2007; 22(4):523-539.
21. Robins J, Sued M, Lei-Gomez Q, Rotnitzky A. Comment: performance of double-robust estimators when 'inverse probability' weights are highly variable. Statistical Science 2007; 22(4):544-559.
22. Freedman D, Berk R. Weighting regressions by propensity scores. Evaluation Review 2008; 32:392-409.
23. Efron B, Tibshirani R. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman & Hall: New York, 1993.
24. Chernick M. Bootstrap Methods-A Practitioners Guide (1st edn). Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. Wiley: London, 1999.
25. Austin P, Stafford J. The performance of two data-generation processes for data with specified marginal odds ratios. Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation 2008; 37(6):1039-1051.
26. Rosenbaum P, Rubin D. Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. Journal of American Statistical Association 1984; 79(387):516-524.
27. Austin P. Authors's reply: the performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios. Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27(19):3918-3920.
28. Martens E, Pestman W, Klungel O. Letter to the editor: conditioning on the propensity score can result in biased estimation of common measures of treatment effect: a Monte Carlo study (pn/ a). Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26(16):3205-3212.
29. Martens E, Pestman W, de Boer A, Belitzer S, Klungel O. Systematic differences in treatment effect estimates between propensity score methods and logistic regression. International Journal of Epidemiology 2008; 37:1142-1147.
30. Stürmer T, Rothman K, Glynn R. Insights into different results from different causal contrasts in the presence of effect-measure modification. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 2006; 15(10):698-709.
31. Greenland S, Robins M, Pearl J. Confounding and collapsibility in causal inference. Statistical Science 1999; 14(1):29-46.
32. Greenland S. Interpretation and choice of effect measures in epidemiologic analyses. American Journal of Epidemiology 1987; 125:761-768.
33. Austin P. 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.
34. Austin P. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating relative risks. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2008; 61(6):537-545.
35. Xu J, Long S. Confidence intervals for predicted outcomes in regression models for categorical outcomes. The Stata Journal 2005; 5(4):537-559.