The use of propensity scores and observational data to estimate randomized controlled trial generalizability bias

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 32, Issue 20, 2013, Pages 3552-3568

  Pressler, Taylor R ^a   Kaizar, Eloise E ^b  

^a Quantum Health   (United States)

^b OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Causal effect; Observational studies; Propensity score; Randomized controlled trials; Sample selection error

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; DATA ANALYSIS; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PROPENSITY SCORE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SIMULATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL PARAMETERS;

CAUSAL EFFECT; OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES; PROPENSITY SCORE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; SAMPLE SELECTION ERROR;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; EXTRACTION, OBSTETRICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PROPENSITY SCORE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84882244948     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.5802     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Stirman SW, DeRubeis RJ, Crits-Christoph P, Brody PE. Are samples in randomized controlled trials of psychotherapy representative of community outpatients? A new methodology and initial findings. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 2003; 71(6):963-972. DOI: 10.1037/0022-006X.71.6.963.
2. Greenhouse JB, Kaizar EE, Kelleher K, Seltman H, Gardner W.Generalizing from clinical trial data: a case study. The risk of suicidality among pediatric antidepressant users. Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27: 1801-1813. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3218.
3. Humphreys K, Weisner C. Use of exclusion criteria in selecting research subjects and its effect on the generalizability of alcohol treatment outcome studies. American Journal of Psychiatry 2000; 157: 588-594.
4. Zimmerman M, Chelminski I, Posternak MA. Exclusion criteria used in antidepressant efficacy trials: consistency across studies and representativeness of samples included. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 2004; 192: 87-94.
5. Fortin M, Dionne J, Phiho G, Gignac J, Almirall J, Lapointe L.Randomized controlled trials: do they have external validity for patients with multiple comorbidities?Annals of Family Medicine 2006; 4: 104-108. DOI: 10.1370/afm.516.
6. Travers J, Marsh S, Williams M, Weatherall M, Caldwell B, Shirtcliffe P, Aldington S, Beasley R.External validity of randomised controlled trials in asthma: to whom do the results of the trials apply?Thorax 2007; 62: 219-223. DOI: 10.1136/thx.2006.066837.
7. Rothwell P. External validity of randomised controlled trials: to whom do these results of this trial apply. Lancet 2005; 365: 82-93. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17670-8.
8. Altman DG. Poor-quality medical research: what can journals do?Journal of the American Medical Association 2002; 287(21):2765-2767. DOI: 10.1001/jama.287.21.2765.
9. Eddy D, Hasselblad V, Shachter R. Meta-analysis by the Confidence Profile Method: The Statistical Synthesis of Evidence. Harcourte Brace Jovanovich: Boston, 1992.
10. Kaizar EE. Estimating treatment effect via simple cross design synthesis. Statistics in Medicine 2011; 30: 2986-3009.
11. Greenland S. Multiple-bias modelling for analysis of observational data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A 2005; 168: 267-306. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2004.00349.x.
12. Marcus SM. Assessing non-constant bias with parallel randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1997; 50: 823-828. DOI: 10.1016/S0895-4356(97)00068-1.
13. Wolpert RL, Mengersen KL. Adjusted likelihoods for synthesizing empirical evidence from studies that differ in quality and design: effects of environmental tobacco smoke. Statistical Science 2004; 19: 450-471. DOI: 10.1214/088342304000000350.
14. D'Agostino RB Jr. Propensity score methods for bias reduction for the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Statistics in Medicine 1998; 17: 2265-2281. DOI: 10.1002/0470.023678.ch1b.
15. Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research 2011; 46: 399-424. DOI: 10.1080/00273171.2011.568786.
16. Williams MC, Knuppel RA, O'Brien WF, Weiss A, Kanarek KS. A randomized comparison of assisted vaginal delivery by obstetric forceps and polyethylene vacuum cup. Obstetric Gynecology 1991; 78: 789-794.
17. Hill JL. Bayesian nonparametric modeling for causal inference. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 2011; 20: 217-240. DOI: 10.1198/jcgs.2010.08162.
18. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70: 41-55. DOI: 10.1093/biomet/70.1.41.
19. Lunceford J, Davidian M. Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of casual treatment effects: a comparative study. Statistics in Medicine 2004; 23: 2937-2960. DOI: 10.1002/sim.1903.
20. Kang J, Schafer J. Demystifying double robustness: a comparison of alternative strategies for estimating a population mean from incomplete data. Statistical Science 2007; 22(4):523-539. DOI: 10.1214/07-STS227.
21. Cochran WG. Sampling Techniques, 3rd edn. Wiley: New York, 1997; Section 6.18.
22. Li L, Shen C, Wu AC, Li X. Propensity score-based sensitivity analysis method for uncontrolled confounding. American Journal of Epidemiology 2011; 174(3):345-353. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwr096.
23. Chaudhuri R, Livingston E, McMahon AD, Thomson L, Borland W, Thomson NC. Cigarette smoking impairs the therapeutic response to oral corticosteroids in chronic asthma. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2003; 168: 1308-1311. DOI: 10.1164/rccm.200304-503OC.
24. Little RJA, Rubin D. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, 2nd edn. Wiley, 2002.