Balance measures for propensity score methods: A clinical example on beta-agonist use and the risk of myocardial infarction

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety

Volumn 20, Issue 11, 2011, Pages 1130-1137

  Groenwold, Rolf H H ^a,b   de Vries, Frank ^a,c   de Boer, Anthonius ^a   Pestman, Wiebe R ^a,b   Rutten, Frans H ^b   Hoes, Arno W ^b   Klungel, Olaf H ^a,b  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^c SOUTHAMPTON GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Adverse effects; Confounding; Pharmacoepidemiology; Propensity score

Indexed keywords

BETA ADRENERGIC RECEPTOR STIMULATING AGENT; FORMOTEROL; SALMETEROL;

ADULT; ANGINA PECTORIS; ARTICLE; ASTHMA; CARDIOVASCULAR RISK; CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE LUNG DISEASE; CONFOUNDING VARIABLE; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; FEMALE; HEART INFARCTION; HUMAN; KOLMOGOROV SMIRNOV TEST; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MORTALITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROPENSITY SCORE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTERS; ADMINISTRATION, INHALATION; ADRENERGIC BETA-AGONISTS; ADULT; AGED; ANTI-ASTHMATIC AGENTS; ASTHMA; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; COHORT STUDIES; COMORBIDITY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DELAYED-ACTION PREPARATIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYPERTENSION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; PROPENSITY SCORE; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; PULMONARY DISEASE, CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RISK; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC;

EID: 80555131090     PISSN: 10538569     EISSN: 10991557     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pds.2251     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Groenwold RH, Hak E, Hoes AW. Quantitative assessment of unobserved confounding is mandatory in non-randomized intervention studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62: 22-28.
2. Salpeter SR, Ormiston TM, Salpeter EE. Cardiovascular effects of beta-agonists in patients with asthma and COPD: a meta-analysis. Chest 2004; 125: 2309-2321.
3. de Vries F, Pouwels S, Bracke M, et al. Use of beta2 agonists and risk of acute myocardial infarction in patients with hypertension. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2008; 65: 580-586.
4. Spitzer WO, Suissa S, Ernst P, et al. The use of beta-agonists and the risk of death and near death from asthma. N Engl J Med 1992; 326: 501-506.
5. Suissa S, Ernst P, Boivin JF, et al. A cohort analysis of excess mortality in asthma and the use of inhaled beta-agonists. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1994; 149: 604-610.
6. Suissa S, Assimes T, Ernst P. Inhaled short acting beta agonist use in COPD and the risk of acute myocardial infarction. Thorax 2003; 58: 43-46.
7. Zhang B, de Vries F, Setakis E, van Staa TP. The pattern of risk of myocardial infarction in patients taking asthma medication: a study with the General Practice Research Database. J Hypertens 2009; 27: 1485-1492.
8. Klungel OH, Martens EP, Psaty BM, et al. Methods to assess intended effects of drug treatment in observational studies are reviewed. J Clin Epidemiol 2004; 57: 1223-1231.
9. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J Am Stat Assoc 1984; 79: 516-524.
10. Rubin DB. The design versus the analysis of observational studies for causal effects: parallels with the design of randomized trials. Stat Med 2007; 26: 20-36.
11. Martens EP, Pestman WR, de Boer A, et al. Systematic differences in treatment effect estimates between propensity score methods and logistic regression. Int J Epidemiol 2008; 37: 1142-1147.
12. Setoguchi S, Schneeweiss S, Brookhart MA, Glynn RJ, Cook EF. Evaluating uses of data mining techniques in propensity score estimation: a simulation study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2008; 17: 546-555.
13. Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med 2009; 28: 3083-3107.
14. 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. Stat Med 2007; 26: 734-753.
15. Austin PC. Assessing balance in measured baseline covariates when using many-to-one matching on the propensity score. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2008; 17: 1218-1225.
16. Austin PC. The relative ability of different propensity score methods to balance measured covariates between treated and untreated subjects in observational studies. Med Decis Making 2009; 29: 661-677.
17. Austin PC. Goodness-of-fit diagnostics for the propensity score model when estimating treatment effects using covariate adjustment with the propensity score. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2008 Dec; 17: 1202-1217.
18. Belitser SV, Martens EP, Pestman WR, Groenwold RH, de Boer A, Klungel OH. Measuring balance and model selection in propensity score methods. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2011 Jul 29. doi: 10.1002/pds.2188. [Epub ahead of print].
19. Sears MR. Safety of long-acting beta-agonists: are new data really required? Chest 2009; 136: 604-607.
20. de Vries F, Pouwels S, Bracke M, et al. Use of inhaled corticosteroids and the risk of non-fatal acute myocardial infarction. J Hypertens 2008; 26: 124-129.
21. Stephens MA. Use of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Cramer-von Mises and related statistics without extensive tables. J Roy Stat Soc Ser B 1970; 32: 115-122.
22. Pestman WR. Mathematical Statistics. Walter de Gruyter: Berlin, 2009.
23. Inman HF, Bradley EL. The overlapping coefficient as a measure of agreement between probability distributions and point estimation of the overlap of two normal densities. Commun Statist Theory Meth 1989; 18: 3851-3874.
24. Stricker BH, Stijnen T. Analysis of individual drug use as a time-varying determinant of exposure in prospective population-based cohort studies. Eur J Epidemiol 2010; 25: 245-251.
25. Bender R, Augustin T, Blettner M. Generating survival times to simulate Cox proportional hazards models. Stat Med 2005; 24: 1713-1723.
26. Gail MH, Wieand S, Piantadosi S. Biased estimates of treatment effect in randomized experiments with nonlinear regressions and omitted covariates. Biometrika 1984; 71: 431-444.
27. Ford I, Norrie J, Ahmadi S. Model inconsistency, illustrated by the Cox proportional hazards model. Stat Med 1995; 14: 735-746.
28. Austin PS, Grootendorst P, Normand SL, Anderson GM. Conditioning on the propensity score can result in biased estimation of common measures of treatment effect: a Monte Carlo study. Stat Med 2007; 26: 754-768.
29. Groenwold RH, Moons KG, Peelen LM, Knol MJ, Hoes AW. Reporting of treatment effects from randomized trials: A plea for multivariable risk ratios. Contemp Clin Trials 2011; 32: 399-402.
30. R Development Core Team (2008). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, ISBN 3-900051-07-0.
31. Westreich D, Cole SR, Funk MJ, Brookhart MA, Stürmer T. The role of the c-statistic in variable selection for propensity score models. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2011; 20: 317-320.
32. Groenwold RH, Hoes AW, Nichol KL, Hak E. Quantifying the potential role of unmeasured confounders: the example of influenza vaccination. Int J Epidemiol 2008; 37: 1422-1429.
33. Shah BR, Laupacis A, Hux JE, Austin PC. Propensity score methods gave similar results to traditional regression modeling in observational studies: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2005; 58: 550-559.
34. 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. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59: 437-447.
35. Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, et al. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49: 1373-1379.