Comparing paired vs non-paired statistical methods of analyses when making inferences about absolute risk reductions in propensity-score matched samples

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 30, Issue 11, 2011, Pages 1292-1301

  Austin, Peter C ^a,b  

^a INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL EVALUATIVE SCIENCES   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Absolute risk reduction; Categorical data analysis; Hypothesis testing; Monte Carlo simulations; Propensity score; Propensity score matching; Risk difference; Statistical inference; Type I error rate

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; MACHINE LEARNING; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PROPENSITY SCORE; RISK REDUCTION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; MATCHED-PAIR ANALYSIS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PROPENSITY SCORE; SELECTION BIAS;

EID: 79955639125     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.4200     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70:41-55.
2. 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. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X09341755.
3. Schafer JL, Kang J. Average causal effects from nonrandomized studies: a practical guide and simulated example. Psychological Methods 2008; 13:279-313.
4. 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. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2007.07.021
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. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3150.
6. 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. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.108.790634.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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; 29:2137-2148. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3854.
10. Austin PC. Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2010; DOI: 10.1002/pst.433.
11. Imbens GW. Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: a review. The Review of Economics and Statistics 2004; 86:4-29.
12. 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. DOI: 10.1080/03610910903528301.
13. Agresti A. An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis. Wiley: New York, NY, 1996.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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. DOI: 10.1002/sim.2618.
17. Austin PC. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios. Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26:3078-3094. DOI: 10.1002/sim.2781.
18. Austin PC. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating relative risks. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2008; 61:537-545. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.07.011.