Propensity scores in the presence of effect modification: A case study using the comparison of mortality on hemodialysis versus peritoneal dialysis

Emerging Themes in Epidemiology

Volumn 7, Issue , 2010, Pages

  Liem, Ylian S ^a   Wong, John B ^b   Hunink, Mg Myriam ^a,c   De Charro, Frank Th ^d   Winkelmayer, Wolfgang C ^e  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b TUFTS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^d Dutch End Stage Renal Disease Registry RENINE   (Netherlands)

^e STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HEMODIALYSIS; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; KIDNEY FAILURE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MORTALITY; PERITONEAL DIALYSIS; RENAL REPLACEMENT THERAPY; SCORING SYSTEM; SURVIVAL RATE;

EID: 77951964760     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17427622     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1742-7622-7-1     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. 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. T Sturmer M Joshi RJ Glynn J Avorn KJ Rothman S Schneeweiss, J Clin Epidemiol 2006 59 437 447 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.07.004 16632131
2. Stratification by a multivariate confounder score. OS Miettinen, Am J Epidemiol 1976 104 609 620 998608
3. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. PR Rosenbaum DB Rubin, Biometrika 1983 70 41 55 10.1093/biomet/70.1.41
4. Propensity score methods gave similar results to traditional regression modeling in observational studies: a systematic review. BR Shah A Laupacis JE Hux PC Austin, J Clin Epidemiol 2005 58 550 559 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.10.016 15878468
5. Effect of starting with hemodialysis compared with peritoneal dialysis in patients new on dialysis treatment: a randomized controlled trial. JC Korevaar GW Feith FW Dekker JG van Manen EW Boeschoten PM Bossuyt RT Krediet, Kidney Int 2003 64 2222 2228 10.1046/j.1523-1755.2003.00321.x 14633146
6. Statistisch Verslag 2001. FT de Charro MG Nieuwenhuizen PG Ramsteijn HW van Hamersvelt DG Struijk PM Ter Wee YI Tjandra, Rotterdam: Stichting RENINE 2001
7. Patient-related and centre-related factors influencing technique survival of peritoneal dialysis in The Netherlands. RM Huisman MG Nieuwenhuizen F Th de Charro, Nephrol Dial Transplant 2002 17 1655 1660 10.1093/ndt/17.9.1655 12198219
8. Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. DB Rubin, Ann Intern Med 1997 127 757 763 9382394
9. Estimating treatment effects using observational data. RB D'Agostino Jr RB D'Agostino Sr, Jama 2007 297 314 316 10.1001/jama.297.3.314 17227985
10. Principles for modeling propensity scores in medical research: a systematic literature review. S Weitzen KL Lapane AY Toledano AL Hume V Mor, Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2004 13 841 853 10.1002/pds.969 15386709
11. Comparison of hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis survival in The Netherlands. YS Liem JB Wong MG Hunink FT de Charro WC Winkelmayer, Kidney Int 2007 71 153 158 10.1038/sj.ki.5002014 17136031
12. Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis: comparison of patient mortality with adjustment for comorbid conditions. PJ Held FK Port MN Turenne DS Gaylin RJ Hamburger RA Wolfe, Kidney Int 1994 45 1163 1169 10.1038/ki.1994.154 8007587
13. Comparing mortality of elderly patients on hemodialysis versus peritoneal dialysis: a propensity score approach. WC Winkelmayer RJ Glynn MA Mittleman R Levin JS Pliskin J Avorn, J Am Soc Nephrol 2002 13 2353 2362 10.1097/01.ASN.0000025785.41314.76 12191980
14. Comparison and survival of hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis in the elderly. AJ Collins E Weinhandl JJ Snyder SC Chen D Gilbertson, Semin Dial 2002 15 98 102 10.1046/j.1525-139X.2002.00032.x 11952935
15. The differential impact of risk factors on mortality in hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. EF Vonesh JJ Snyder RN Foley AJ Collins, Kidney Int 2004 66 2389 2401 10.1111/j.1523-1755.2004.66028.x 15569331
16. Insights into different results from different causal contrasts in the presence of effect-measure modification. T Sturmer KJ Rothman RJ Glynn, Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2006 15 698 709 10.1002/pds.1231 16528796
17. Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders. MS Cepeda R Boston JT Farrar BL Strom, Am J Epidemiol 2003 158 280 287 10.1093/aje/kwg115 12882951
18. Results of multivariable logistic regression, propensity matching, propensity adjustment, and propensity-based weighting under conditions of nonuniform effect. T Kurth AM Walker RJ Glynn KA Chan JM Gaziano K Berger JM Robins, Am J Epidemiol 2006 163 262 270 10.1093/aje/kwj047 16371515
19. Weaknesses of goodness-of-fit tests for evaluating propensity score models: the case of the omitted confounder. S Weitzen KL Lapane AY Toledano AL Hume V Mor, Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2005 14 227 238 10.1002/pds.986 15386700
20. A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study. PC Austin P Grootendorst GM Anderson, Stat Med 2006 16220490
21. The use of the propensity score for estimating treatment effects: administrative versus clinical data. PC Austin MM Mamdani TA Stukel GM Anderson JV Tu, Stat Med 2005 24 1563 1578 10.1002/sim.2053 15706581