Propensity score applied to survival data analysis through proportional hazards models: A Monte Carlo study

Pharmaceutical Statistics

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 222-229

  Gayat, Etienne ^a,b   Resche Rigon, Matthieu ^a,b   Mary, Jean Yves ^a,b   Porcher, Raphaël ^a,b  

^a SAINT LOUIS HOSPITAL   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ PARIS DESCARTES   (France)

Author keywords

bias; propensity score; simulation; survival; treatment effect

Indexed keywords

ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS; ARTICLE; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; COVARIANCE; DATA ANALYSIS; HAZARD RATIO; MONTE CARLO METHOD; NULL HYPOTHESIS; PROPENSITY SCORE; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; RELIABILITY; SAMPLE SIZE; SIMULATION; STRATIFIED SAMPLE; SURVIVAL; SURVIVAL TIME; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VARIANCE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMAN; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PROCEDURES;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMANS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY AS TOPIC; PROPENSITY SCORE; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 84861097401     PISSN: 15391604     EISSN: 15391612     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pst.537     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Rossi P, Freeman H,. A Systematic Approach. Sage Publications, Inc.: Newburgy Park, CA, 1993.
2. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Cook DJ,. Users' guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. B. What were the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Journal of the American Medical Association 1994; 271: 59-63. DOI: Electronic Resource Number. (Pubitemid 24020582)
3. Corrie P, Shaw J, Harris R,. Rate limiting factors in recruitment of patients to clinical trials in cancer research: descriptive study. British Medical Journal 2003; 327: 320-321. DOI: Electronic Resource Number. (Pubitemid 36966619)
4. Fossa SD, Skovlund E,. Selection of patients may limit the generalizability of results from cancer trials. Acta Oncologica 2002; 41: 131-137. DOI: Electronic Resource Number. (Pubitemid 34557072)
5. Rosenbaum P, Rubin D,. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effect. Biometrika 1983; 70: 41-55. DOI: Electronic Resource Number.
6. Austin PC,. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios. Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26: 3078-3094. DOI: Electronic Resource Number. (Pubitemid 47019008)
7. Austin PC,. The performance of different propensity-score methods for estimating relative risks. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2008; 61: 537-545. DOI: Electronic Resource Number.
8. 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, DOI: Electronic Resource Number. (Pubitemid 46206593)
9. Senn S, Graf E, Caputo A,. Stratification for the propensity score compared with linear regression techniques to assess the effect of treatment or exposure. Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26: 5529-5544. DOI: Electronic Resource Number. (Pubitemid 351193579)
10. Austin PC, 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. Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26: 754-768. DOI: Electronic Resource Number. (Pubitemid 46206594)
11. Zeger SL, Liang KY,. Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics 1986; 42: 121-130. DOI: Electronic Resource Number.
12. 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: Electronic Resource Number.
13. Chastang C, Byar D, Piantadosi S,. A quantitative study of the bias in estimating the treatment effect caused by omitting a balanced covariate in survival models. Statistics in Medicine 1988; 7: 1243-1255. DOI: Electronic Resource Number. (Pubitemid 19018454)
14. Struthers C, Kalbfleisch J,. Misspecified proportional hazard models. Biometrika 1986; 73: 363-369. DOI: Electronic Resource Number.
15. Grambauer N, Schumacher M, Beyersmann J,. Proportional subdistribution hazards modeling offers a summary analysis, even if misspecified. Statistics in Medicine 2010; 29: 875-884. DOI: Electronic Resource Number.
16. Rubin D,. The use of matched sampling and regression adjustment to remove bias in observational studies. Biometrics 1973; 29: 185-203. DOI: Electronic Resource Number.
17. Hill J, Reiter JP,. Interval estimation for treatment effects using propensity score matching. Statistics in Medicine 2006; 25: 2230-2256. DOI: Electronic Resource Number. (Pubitemid 43985456)
18. Dehejia R, Wahba S,. Causal effects in non-experimental studies: re-evaluation the evaluation of training programs. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1999; 94: 1053-1062. DOI: Electronic Resource Number.
19. Rubin D, Thomas N,. Combining propensity score matching with additional adjustments for prognostic covariates. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2000; 95: 573-585. DOI: Electronic Resource Number.
20. Stuart EA,. Developing practical recommendations for the use of propensity scores: discussion of 'A critical appraisal of propensity score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003' by Peter Austin, Statistics in Medicine. Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27: 2062-2065. (Pubitemid 351772303)
21. Austin PC,. Comparing paired vs non-paired statistical methods of analyses when making inferences about absolute risk reductions in propensity-score matched samples. Statistics in Medicine 2011; 30: 1292-1301. DOI: Electronic Resource Number.
22. Austin PC,. Coverage of confidence intervals, and variance estimation in propensity-score matched analyses. The International Journal of Biostatistics 2009; 5:Article 13. DOI: Electronic Resource Number.