Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies

Pharmaceutical Statistics

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 150-161

  Austin, Peter C ^a,b  

^a INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL EVALUATIVE SCIENCES   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Bias; Binary data; Matching; Monte Carlo simulations; Observational study; Propensity score; Propensity score matching; Risk difference

Indexed keywords

BETA ADRENERGIC RECEPTOR BLOCKING AGENT;

ARTICLE; ATTRIBUTABLE RISK; CALIPER WIDTH; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; HEART FAILURE; MEASUREMENT; MEASUREMENT ERROR; MONTE CARLO METHOD; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PROPENSITY SCORE; SURVIVAL; SYSTEMATIC ERROR; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PROPENSITY SCORE; RISK;

EID: 77958600686     PISSN: 15391604     EISSN: 15391612     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pst.433     Document Type: Article

References (29)

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. (Pubitemid 43950281)
4. 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.
5. Austin PC. A critical appraisal of propensity score matching in the medical literature from 1996 to 2003. Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27:2037-2049.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Imbens GW. Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: a review. The Review of Economics and Statistics 2004; 86:4-29. (Pubitemid 38422764)
9. 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. DOI: 10.2202/1557-4679.1146.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Cook RJ, Sackett DL. The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. British Medical Journal 1995; 310:452-454.
13. 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.
14. Sinclair JC, Bracken MB. Clinically useful measures of effect in binary analyses of randomized trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1994; 47:881-889. (Pubitemid 24268892)
15. 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)
16. Austin PC. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios. Statistics in Medicine. 2007; 26:3078-3094. (Pubitemid 47019008)
17. Greenland S. Interpretation and choice of effect measures in epidemiologic analyses. American Journal of Epidemiology 1987; 125:761-768. (Pubitemid 17066475)
18. Austin PC. A data-generation process for data with specified risk differences or numbers needed to treat. Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation 2010; 39:563-577.
19. Austin PC. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating difference in proportions (risk differences or absolute risk reductions) in observational studies. Statistics in Medicine 2010; DOI: 10.1002/sim.3854.
20. 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.
21. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd edn). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers: Hillsdale NJ, 1988.
22. Cochran WG, Rubin DB. Controlling bias in observational studies: a review. Sankhya: The Indian Journal of Statistics 1973;35:416-466.
23. 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. (Pubitemid 38072107)
24. 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. (Pubitemid 37443288)
25. Tu JV, Donovan LR, Lee DS, Austin PC, Ko DT, Wang JT, Newman AM. Quality of Cardiac Care in Ontario - Phase 1. Report 1. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences: Toronto, 2004.
26. Flury BK, Riedwyl H. Standard distance in univariate and multivariate analysis. The American Statistician 1986; 40:249-251.
27. 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. DOI: 10.1002/bimj.200810488.
28. 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.
29. 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.