The performance of different propensity-score methods for estimating differences in proportions (risk differences or absolute risk reductions) in observational studies

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 29, Issue 20, 2010, Pages 2137-2148

  Austin, Peter C ^a,b  

^a INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL EVALUATIVE SCIENCES   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Binary data; Inverse probability of treatment weighting; IPTW; Matching; Number needed to treat; Observational study; Propensity score; Propensity score matching; Risk difference

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; ATTRIBUTABLE RISK; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; MEAN SQUARED ERROR; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PROPENSITY SCORE; SCORING SYSTEM;

ADRENERGIC BETA-ANTAGONISTS; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); BIOSTATISTICS; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; DATABASES, FACTUAL; HEART FAILURE; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; ODDS RATIO; PROPENSITY SCORE; RISK;

EID: 77956314484     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.3854     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. 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.
2. Cook RJ, Sackett DL. The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. British Medical Journal 1995; 310:452-454.
3. 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.
4. Sinclair JC, Bracken MB. Clinically useful measures of effect in binary analyses of randomized trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1994; 47:881-889.
5. Available from: http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/authors/types-of-article/ research [13 November 2008].
6. 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. Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26:754-768. (Pubitemid 46206594)
7. Austin PC. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios. Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26:3078-3094.
8. Austin PC. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating relative risks. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2008; 61:537-545.
9. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70:41-55.
10. 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.
11. Rosenbaum PR. Model-based direct adjustment. The Journal of the American Statistician 1987; 82:387-394.
12. Austin PC. A critical appraisal of propensity score matching in the medical literature from 1996 to 2003. Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27:2037-2049.
13. Austin PC. Propensity-score matching in the cardiovascular surgery literature from 2004-2006: a systematic review and suggestions for improvement. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2007; 134:1128-1135.
14. Austin PC. A report card on propensity-score matching in the cardiology literature from 2004-2006: results of a systematic review. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes 2008; 1:62-67.
15. 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.
16. 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:Article 13. DOI: 10.2202/1557-4679.1146.
17. Agresti A, Min Y. Effects and non-effects of paired identical observations in comparing proportions with binary matched-pairs data. Statistics in Medicine 2004; 23:65-75.
18. Lunceford JK, Davidian M. Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of causal treatment effects: a comparative study. Statistics in Medicine 2004; 23:2937-2960. (Pubitemid 39200133)
19. 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.
20. 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)
21. McCullagh N, Nelder JA. Generalized Linear Models (2nd edn). Chapman & Hall: London, 1989.
22. Greenland S. Interpretation and choice of effect measures in epidemiologic analyses. American Journal of Epidemiology 1987; 125:761-768.
23. Austin PC. A data-generation process for data with specified risk differences or numbers needed to treat. Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation, in press.
24. Austin PC, Stafford J. The performance of two data-generation processes for data with specified marginal treatment odds ratios. Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation 2008; 37:1039-1051.
25. 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.
26. 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)
27. 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. Journal of the American Medical Association 2003; 290:2581-2587.
28. Tu JV, Donovan LR, Lee DS, Austin PC, Ko DT, Wang JT, Newman AM. Quality of cardiac care in Ontario - phase 1. Report 1, Toronto, Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, 2004.
29. Flury BK, Riedwyl H. Standard distance in univariate and multivariate analysis. The American Statistician 1986; 40:249-251.
30. Austin PC, Manca A, Zwarenstein M, Juurlink DN, Stanbrook MB. A substantial and confusing variation exists in handling of baseline covariates in randomized controlled trials: a review of trials published in leading medical journals. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2010; 63:142-153. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.002.
31. Austin PC. The relative ability of different propensity-score methods to balance measured covariates between treated and untreated subjects in observational studies. Medical Decision Making 2009; 29:661-677.
32. Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Statistics in Medicine 2009; 28:3083-3107.
33. Rubin DB. On principles for modeling propensity scores in medical research. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 2004; 13:885-887.
34. Imbens GW. Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: a review. The Review of Economics and Statistics 2004; 86:4-29.