The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal hazard ratios

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 32, Issue 16, 2013, Pages 2837-2849

  Austin, Peter C ^a,b,c  

^a INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL EVALUATIVE SCIENCES   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW); Monte Carlo simulations; Observational study; Propensity score; Survival analysis; Time to event outcomes

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ERROR; HAZARD RATIO; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INVERSE PROBABILITY OF TREATMENT WEIGHTING; MONTE CARLO METHOD; NORMAL DISTRIBUTION; PROPENSITY SCORE; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; STATISTICAL PARAMETERS; SURVIVAL;

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

EID: 84879167098     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.5705     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Cook TD, DeMets DL. Introduction to Statistical Methods for Clinical Trials. Chapman & Hall/CRC: Boca Raton, FL, 2008.
2. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70:41-55.
3. Weitzen S, Lapane KL, Toledano AY, Hume AL, Mor V. Principles for modeling propensity scores in medical research: a systematic literature review. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 2004; 13(12):841-853.
4. Austin PC. A critical appraisal of propensity-score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003. Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27(12):2037-2049.
5. 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(2):142-153.
6. 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(4):754-768.
7. Austin PC. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios. Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26(16):3078-3094.
8. Austin PC. The performance of different propensity-score methods for estimating relative risks. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2008; 61(6):537-545.
9. Austin PC. The performance of different propensity-score methods for estimating differences in proportions (risk differences or absolute risk reductions) in observational studies. Statistics in Medicine 2010; 29(20):2137-2148.
10. Greenland S. Interpretation and choice of effect measures in epidemiologic analyses. American Journal of Epidemiology 1987; 125(5):761-768.
11. Gail MH, Wieand S, Piantadosi S. Biased estimates of treatment effect in randomized experiments with nonlinear regressions and omitted covariates. Biometrika 1984; 7:431-444.
12. Rosenbaum PR. Propensity score. In Encyclopedia of Biostatistics, Armitage P, Colton T (eds). John Wiley & Sons: Boston, 2005; 4267-4272.
13. 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.
14. Austin PC. Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2010; 10:150-161.
15. Lin DY, Wei LJ. The robust inference for the proportional hazards model. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1989; 84:1074-1078.
16. Cummings P, McKnight B, Greenland S. Matched cohort methods for injury research. Epidemiologic Reviews 2003; 25:43-50.
17. 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.
18. Cochran WG. The effectiveness of adjustment by subclassification in removing bias in observational studies. Biometrics 1968; 24(2):295-313.
19. Lunceford JK, Davidian M. Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of causal treatment effects: a comparative study. Statistics in Medicine 2004; 23(19):2937-2960.
20. Morgan SL, Todd JL. A diagnostic routine for the detection of consequential heterogeneity of causal effects. Sociological Methodology 2008; 38:231-281.
21. Joffe MM, Ten Have TR, Feldman HI, Kimmel SE. Model selection, confounder control, and marginal structural models: Review and new applications. The American Statistician 2004; 58:272-279.
22. Bender R, Augustin T, Blettner M. Generating survival times to simulate Cox proportional hazards models. Statistics in Medicine 2005; 24(11):1713-1723.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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(4):734-753.
26. Neuhaus JM, Kalbfleish JD, Hauck WW. A comparison of cluster-specific and population-averaged approaches for analyzing correlated binary data. International Statistical Review 1991; 59(1):25-35.
27. Pocock SJ, Assmann SE, Enos LE, Kasten LE. Subgroup analysis, covariate adjustment and baseline comparisons in clinical trial reporting: current practice and problems. Statistics in Medicine 2002; 21(19):2917-2930.
28. Austin PC. Type I error rates, coverage of confidence intervals, and variance estimation in propensity-score matched analyses. International Journal of Biostatistics 2009; 5: Article 13. DOI: 10.2202/1557-4679.1146.
29. Cole SR, Hernan MA. Adjusted survival curves with inverse probability weights. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine 2004; 75:45-49.
30. Xie J, Liu C. Adjusted Kaplan-Meier estimator and log-rank test with inverse probability of treatment weighting for survival data. Statistics in Medicine 2005; 24(20):3089-3110.
31. Lee BK, Lessler J, Stuart EA. Improving propensity score weighting using machine learning. Statistics in Medicine 2010; 29(3):337-346.
32. Setoguchi S, Schneeweiss S, Brookhart MA, Glynn RJ, Cook EF. Evaluating uses of data mining techniques in propensity score estimation: a simulation study. Pharmacoepidemiolgy and Drug Safety 2008; 17(6):546-555.
33. Austin PC. Statistical criteria for selecting the optimal number of untreated subjects matched to each treated subject when using many-to-one matching on the propensity score. American Journal of Epidemiology 2010; 172(9):1092-1097.
34. 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(1):171-184.
35. Rosenbaum PR. Observational Studies. Springer-Verlag: New York, NY, 2002.
36. 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(11):1292-1301.
37. Gayat E, Resche-Rigon M, Mary JY, Porcher R. Propensity score applied to survival data analysis through proportional hazards models: a Monte Carlo study. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2012; 11(3):222-229, DOI: 10.1002/pst.537.