Are propensity scores really superior to standard multivariable analysis?

Contemporary Clinical Trials

Volumn 32, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 731-740

  Biondi Zoccai, Giuseppe ^a,b   Romagnoli, Enrico ^b,c   Agostoni, Pierfrancesco ^b,d   Capodanno, Davide ^b,e   Castagno, Davide ^b,f   D'Ascenzo, Fabrizio ^b,f   Sangiorgi, Giuseppe ^b,g   Modena, Maria Grazia ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MODENA AND REGGIO EMILIA   (Italy)

^b Meta analysis and Evidence based Medicine Training in Cardiology (METCARDIO)   (Italy)

^c FONDAZIONE POLICLINICO UNIVERSITARIO A GEMELLI IRCCS   (Italy)

^d UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CATANIA   (Italy)

^f UNIVERSITY OF TURIN   (Italy)

^g UNIVERSITY OF ROME TOR VERGATA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Bias; Cox proportional hazard analysis; Logistic regression; Multivariable analysis; Propensity score

Indexed keywords

BAYES THEOREM; BIOSTATISTICS; BOOTSTRAPPING; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PROPENSITY SCORE; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; REVIEW;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PROPENSITY SCORE; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 79960909793     PISSN: 15517144     EISSN: 15592030     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2011.05.006     Document Type: Review

References (51)

1. Hill A.B. The environment and disease: association or causation?. Proc R Soc Med 1965, 58:295-300. *Key paper detailing the basic principles for the scientific appraisal of causality.
2. Bayarri M.J., Berger J.O. The Interplay of Bayesian and frequentist analysis. Stat Sci 2004, 19:58-80.
3. Smith G.C., Pell J.P. Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2003, 327:1459-1461.
4. Streptomycin treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis. A Medical Research Council investigation. Br Med J 1948, 2:769-782. Streptomycin in Tuberculosis Trials Committee.
5. Guyatt G., Rennie D., Meade M.O., Cook D.J. Users' guide to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice 2008, McGraw-Hill, New York, **Comprehensive textbook detailing the principles of evidence based medicine as well as clinical research. 2nd edition.
6. Sackett D.L. Bias in analytic research. J Chronic Dis 1979, 32:51-63.
7. D'Agostino R.B., Lee M.L., Belanger A.J., Cupples L.A., Anderson K., Kannel W.B. Relation of pooled logistic regression to time dependent Cox regression analysis: the Framingham heart study. Stat Med 1990, 9:1501-1515.
8. Norris R.M., Brandt P.W.T., Caughey D.E., Lee A.J., Scott P.J. A new coronary prognostic index. Lancet 1969, 1:274-278.
9. Kastrati A., Schömig A., Elezi S., et al. Predictive factors of restenosis after coronary stent placement. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997, 30:1428-1436.
10. Hosmer D.L., Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression 2000, John Wiley and Sons, New York, *Detailed textbook on logistic regression.
11. Cox D.R., Oakes D. Analysis of survival data 1984, Chapman & Hall, New York.
12. Harrell F.E. Regression modeling strategies: with applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis 2001, Springer, New York, *Detailed textbook on regression and survival analysis.
13. Rosenbaum P.R., Rubin D.B. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983, 70:41-55.
14. D'Agostino R.B. Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med 1998, 17:2265-2281. **Thorough review on the rationale and implementation of propensity scores.
15. Efron E., Tibshirani R., Tibshirani R.J. An introduction to the bootstrap 1993, Chapman & Hill, New York.
16. Biondi-Zoccai G.G., Agostoni P., Sangiorgi G.M., Airoldi F., Cograve J., Chieffo A., et al. Real-world eluting-stent comparative Italian retrospective evaluation study investigators. Incidence, predictors, and outcomes of coronary dissections left untreated after drug-eluting stent implantation. Eur Heart J 2006, 27:540-546.
17. Mooney C.Z. Monte Carlo simulation. Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-116 1997, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
18. Mehta C.R., Patel N.R. Exact logistic regression: theory and examples. Stat Med 1995, 14:2143-2160.
19. Biondi-Zoccai G.G., Sangiorgi G.M., Chieffo A., et al. RECIPE (Real-world Eluting-stent Comparative Italian retrosPective Evaluation) Study Investigators. Validation of predictors of intraprocedural stent thrombosis in the drug-eluting stent era. Am J Cardiol. Jun. 15 2005, 95(12):1466-1468.
20. Rassen J.A., Schneeweiss S., Glynn R.J., Mittleman M.A., Brookhart M.A. Instrumental variable analysis for estimation of treatment effects with dichotomous outcomes. Am J Epidemiol 2009, 169:273-284.
21. Spiegelhalter D.J., Abrams K.R., Myles J.P. Bayesian approaches to clinical trials and health-care evaluation 2004, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
22. Katz M.H. Multivariable analysis: a practical guide for clinicians 2006, Cambridge University Press, New York, Concise manual on the practical aspects of multivariable analysis.
23. Robinson L.D., Jewell N.P. Some surprising results about covariate adjustment in logistic regression models. Int Stat Rev 1991, 59:227-240.
24. Peduzzi P., Concato J., Kemper E., Holford T.R., Feinstein A.R. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1996, 49:1373-1379.
25. Cepeda M.S., Boston R., Farrar J.T., Strom B.L. Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders. Am J Epidemiol 2003, 158:280-287. **Seminal paper comparing precision and accuracy of propensity scores versus logistic regression.
26. Steyerberg E.W., Eijkemans M.J., Habbema J.D. Stepwise selection in small data sets: a simulation study of bias in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1999, 52:935-942.
27. Agostoni P., Valgimigli M., Van Mieghem C.A., Rodriguez-Granillo G.A., Aoki J., Ong A.T., et al. Comparison of early outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main coronary artery disease in the drug-eluting stent era with versus without intravascular ultrasonic guidance. Am J Cardiol 2005, 95:644-647.
28. Concato J., Peduzzi P., Holford T.R., Feinstein A.R. Importance of events per independent variable in proportional hazards analysis. I. Background, goals, and general strategy. J Clin Epidemiol 1995, 48:1495-1501.
29. Peduzzi P., Concato J., Feinstein A.R., Holford T.R. Importance of events per independent variable in proportional hazards regression analysis. II. Accuracy and precision of regression estimates. J Clin Epidemiol 1995, 48:1503-1510.
30. Romagnoli E., De Servi S., Tamburino C., Colombo A., Burzotta F., Presbitero P., et al. I-BIGIS Study Group Milan, Italy. Real-world outcome of coronary bifurcation lesions in the drug-eluting stent era: Results from the 4,314-patient Italian Society of Invasive Cardiology (SICI-GISE) Italian Multicenter Registry on Bifurcations (I-BIGIS). Am Heart J 2010, 160:535-542. e1.
31. Austin P.C., Grootendorst P., Anderson G.M. A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study. Stat Med 2007, 26:734-753.
32. Weitzen S., Lapane K.L., Toledano A.Y., Hume A.L., Mor V. Principles for modeling propensity scores in medical research: a systematic literature review. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2004, 13:841-853. **Careful systematic appraisal of propensity scores, providing shortlist of items for quality check.
33. Weitzen S., Lapane K.L., Toledano A.Y., Hume A.L., Mor V. Weaknesses of goodness-of-fit tests for evaluating propensity score models: the case of the omitted confounder. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2005, 14:227-238.
34. Lee B.K., Lessler J., Stuart E.A. Improving propensity score weighting using machine learning. Stat Med 2010, 29:337-346.
35. Austin P.C. Some methods of propensity-score matching had superior performance to others: results of an empirical investigation and Monte Carlo simulations. Biom J 2009, 51:171-184.
36. Tamburino C., Capodanno D., Di Salvo M.E., et al. Routine versus selective coronary artery bypass for left main coronary artery revascularization: The appraise a customized strategy for left main revascularization (CUSTOMIZE) study. Int J Cardiol 2011, 150(3):307-314.
37. Rubin D.B., Thomas N. Combining propensity score matching with additional adjustments for prognostic covariates. J Am Stat Assoc 2000, 95:573-585.
38. Austin P.C. The performance of different propensity-score methods for estimating relative risks. J Clin Epidemiol 2008, 61:537-545.
39. Rubin D.B. Estimating causal effects from large data-sets using propensity scores. Ann Intern Med 1997, 127:757-763.
40. Austin P.C. Primer on statistical interpretation or methods report card on propensity-score matching in the cardiology literature from 2004 to 2006: a systematic review. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2008, 1:62-67.
41. Austin P.C. A critical appraisal of propensity-score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003. Statist Med 2008, 27:2037-2049.
42. Morrow D.A., Antman E.M., Snapinn S.M., McCabe C.H., Theroux P., Braunwald E. An integrated clinical approach to predicting the benefit of tirofiban in non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes. Application of the TIMI Risk Score for UA/NSTEMI in PRISM-PLUS. Eur Heart J 2002, 23:223-229.
43. Kurth T., Walker A.M., Glynn R.J., Chan K.A., Gaziano J.M., Berger K., et al. Results of multivariable logistic regression, propensity matching, propensity adjustment, and propensity-based weighting under conditions of nonuniform effect. Am J Epidemiol 2006, 163:262-270.
44. Stürmer T., Joshi M., Glynn R.J., Avorn J., Rothman K.J., 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. J Clin Epidemiol 2006, 59:437-447.
45. Stukel T.A., Fisher E.S., Wennberg D.E., Alter D.A., Gottlieb D.J., Vermeulen M.J. Analysis of observational studies in the presence of treatment selection bias: effects of invasive cardiac management on AMI survival using propensity score and instrumental variable methods. JAMA 2007, 297:278-285.
46. Martens E.P., Pestman W.R., de Boer A., Belitser S.V., Klungel O.H. Systematic differences in treatment effect estimates between propensity score methods and logistic regression. Int J Epidemiol 2008, 37:1142-1147.
47. Austin P.C., Mamdani M.M., Stukel T.A., Anderson G.M., Tu J.V. The use of the propensity score for estimating treatment effects: administrative versus clinical data. Stat Med 2005, 24:1563-1578.
48. Månsson R., Joffe M.M., Sun W., Hennessy S. On the estimation and use of propensity scores in case-control and case-cohort studies. Am J Epidemiol 2007, 166:332-339.
49. Winkelmayer W.C., Kurth T. Propensity scores: help or hype?. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2004, 19:1671-1673.
50. Shah B.R., Laupacis A., Hux J.E., Austin P.C. Propensity score methods gave similar results to traditional regression modeling in observational studies: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2005, 58:550-559. **Comprehensive comparison of results of propensity scores and traditional regression methods.
51. Lunn D.J., Thomas A., Best N., Spiegelhalter D. WinBUGS - a Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility. Stat Comput 2000, 10:325-337.