The added value of propensity score matching when using health-related quality of life reference data

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 32, Issue 29, 2013, Pages 5119-5132

  Cottone, Francesco ^a   Efficace, Fabio ^a   Apolone, Giovanni ^b   Collins, Gary S ^c  

^a Data Center and Health Outcomes Res Unit of the Italian Group for Adult Hematologic Dise (GIMEMA)   (Italy)

^b S MARIA NUOVA HOSPITAL   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Health related quality of life; Propensity score matching; Reference data; Selection bias

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; AGE DISTRIBUTION; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIABETES MELLITUS; EDUCATION; FEMALE; GENDER; GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; HYPERTENSION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; MARRIAGE; MATHEMATICAL VARIABLE; NORMAL HUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PROPENSITY SCORE; QUALITY OF LIFE INDEX; REFERENCE VALUE; SELF REPORT; SEX DIFFERENCE; SHORT FORM 36; SIMULATION;

HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE; PROPENSITY SCORE MATCHING; REFERENCE DATA; SELECTION BIAS;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); BLINDNESS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PROPENSITY SCORE; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 84887221299     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.5868     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). Medical Care 1992; 30(6):473-483.
2. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, Filiberti A, Flechtner H, Fleishman SB, deHaes JC. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1993; 85(5):365-376. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/85.5.365.
3. Cochran WG. The planning of observational studies of human populations (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A 1965; 128:134-155.
4. Rubin DB. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology 1974; 66(5):688-701.
5. Rosenbaum PR. Design of Observational Studies, 1st edn, Springer Series in Statistics. Springer-Verlag Gmbh: New York, 2010.
6. Hjermstad MJ, Fayers PM, Bjordal K, Kaasa S. Using reference data on quality of life-the importance of adjusting for age and gender, exemplified by the EORTC QLQ-C30 (+3). European Journal of Cancer 1998; 34(9):1381-1389. DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031.
7. Andersson B, Pendse ML, Andersson R. Pancreatic function, quality of life and costs at long-term follow-up after acute pancreatitis. World Journal of Gastroenterology 2010; 16(39):4944-4951. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v16.i39.4944.
8. Arlt W, Willis DS, Wild SH, Krone N, Doherty EJ, Hahner S, Han TS, Carroll PV, Conway GS, Rees DA, Stimson RH, Walker BR, Connell JMC, Ross RJ, and the "United Kingdom Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia Adult Study Executive" (CaHASE). Health status of adults with congenital adrenal hyperplasia: a cohort study of 203 patients. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 2010; 95(11):5110-5121. DOI: 10.1210/jc.2010-0917.
9. Mols F, Vingerhoets AJJM, Coebergh JW, Vreugdenhil G, Aaronson NK, Lybeert MLM, vande Poll-Franse LV. Better quality of life among 10-15 year survivors of Hodgkin's lymphoma compared to 5-9 year survivors: a population-based study. European Journal of Cancer 2006; 42(16):2794-2801. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2006.08.006.
10. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70(1):41-55.
11. Apolone G, Deandrea S, Montanari M, Corli O, Greco MT, Cavuto S. Evaluation of the comparative analgesic effectiveness of transdermal and oral opioids in cancer patients: a propensity score analysis. European Journal of Pain 2012; 16(2):229-238. DOI: 10.1002/j.1532-2149.2011.00020.x.
12. White M, Killeen J. The effect of careers guidance for employed adults on continuing education: assessing the importance of attitudinal information. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society) 2002; 165, Part 1:83-95.
13. Heckman JJ, Ichimura H, Todd PE. Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: evidence from evaluating a job training program. The Review of Economic Studies 1997; 64(4):605-654. Special Issue: Evaluation of Training and Other Social Programmes.
14. Reeve BB, Stover AM, Jensen RE, Chen RC, Taylor KL, Clauser SB, Collins SP, Potosky AL. Impact of diagnosis and treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer on health-related quality of life for older americans: a population based study. Cancer 2012; 118(22):5679-5687. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.27578.
15. Reeve BB, Potosky AL, Wilder-Smith A, Han PK, Hays RD, Davis WW, Arora NK, Haffer SC, Clauser SB. Impact of cancer on health-related quality of life of older Americans. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2009; 101(12):860-868. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djp123.
16. Reeve BB, Wilder-Smith A, Arora NK, Hays RD. Reducing bias in cancer research: application of propensity score matching. Health Care Financing Review 2008; 29(4):69-80.
17. Efficace F, Baccarani M, Breccia M, Alimena G, Rosti G, Cottone F, Lambertenghi Deliliers G, Baratè C, Russo Rossi A, Fioritoni G, Luciano L, Turri D, Martino B, Di Raimondo F, Dabusti M, Bergamaschi M, Leoni P, Simula MP, Levato L, Ulisciani S, Veneri D, Sica S, Rambaldi A, Vignetti M, Mandelli F, for GIMEMA. Health-related quality of life in chronic myeloid leukemia patients receiving long-term therapy with imatinib compared with the general population. Blood 2011; 118(17):4554-4560. DOI: 10.1182/blood-2011-04-347575.
18. Liu C, Weber K, Robison E, Hu Z, Jacobson LP, Gange SJ. Assessing the effect of HAART on change in quality of life among HIV-infected women. AIDS Research and Therapy 2006; 3:6. DOI: 10.1186/1742-6405-3-6.
19. Ellis BH, Bannister WM, Cox JK, Fowler BM, Shannon ED, Drachman D, Adams RW, Giordano LA. Utilization of the propensity score method: an exploratory comparison of proxy-completed to self-completed responses in the medicare health outcomes survey. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2003; 1:47. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-1-47.
20. Little RJ, Rubin DB. Causal effects in clinical and epidemiological studies via potential outcomes: concepts and analytical approaches. Annual Review of Public Health 2000; 21:121-145. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.21.1.121.
21. Holland PW. Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1986; 81(396):945-960.
22. Stuart EA. Matching methods for causal inference: a review and a look forward. Statistical Science 2010; 25(1):1-21. DOI: 10.1214/09-STS313.
23. Smith JA, Todd PE. Does matching overcome LaLonde's critique of nonexperimental estimators?Journal of Econometrics 2005; 125:305-353. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2004.04.011.
24. Hill J, Reiter J, Zanutto E. A comparison of experimental and observational data analyses. In Applied Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference From an Incomplete-Data Perspective, Gelman A, Meng X-L (eds). Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, 2004; 49-60.
25. Rubin DB, Thomas N. Matching using estimated propensity scores: relating theory to practice. Biometrics 1996; 52(1):249-264.
26. 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.
27. Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S, Rothman KJ, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Stürmer T. Variable selection for propensity score models. American Journal of Epidemiology 2006; 163(12):1149-1156. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwj149.
28. 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. DOI: 10.1002/sim.2580.
29. Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research 2011; 46(3):399-424. DOI: 10.1080/00273171.2011.568786.
30. Drake C. Effects of misspecification of the propensity score on estimators of treatment effect. Biometrics 1993; 49(4):1231-1236.
31. Dehejia RH, Wahba S. Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. The Review of Economics and Statistics 2002; 84(1):151-161.
32. Zhao Z. Using matching to estimate treatment effects: data requirements, matching metrics, and Monte Carlo evidence. Review of Economics and Statistics 2004; 86:91-107.
33. Austin PC. The relative ability of different propensity score methods to balance measured covariates between treated and untreated subjects in observational studies. Medical Decision Making 2009; 29(6):661-677. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X09341755.
34. Dehejia RH, Wahba S. Causal effects in non-experimental studies: re-evaluating the evaluation of training programs. Journal of American Statistical Association 1999; 94:1053-1062.
35. Rubin DB. Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Annals of Internal Medicine 1997; 127(8 Pt 2):757-763.
36. Rubin DB, Thomas N. Combining propensity score matching with additional adjustments for prognostic covariates. Journal of American Statistical Association 2000; 95:573-585.
37. Rubin DB. Using propensity scores to help design observational studies: application to the tobacco litigation. Health Services & Outcomes Research Methodology 2001; 2:169-188.
38. Rosenbaum PR. The consequences of adjustment for a concomitant variable that has been affected by the treatment. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A 1984; 147:656-666.
39. Austin PC. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios. Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26(16):3078-3094. DOI: 10.1002/sim.2781.
40. 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(12):2062-5; discussion 2066-9. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3207.
41. Coca-Perraillon M. Local and global optimal propensity score matching. In Proceedings of the SAS Global Forum 2007 Conference, no. 185-2007 in Statistics and Data Analysis. SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC, 2007; 1-9. Available from: http://www2.sas.com/proceedings/forum2007/185-2007.pdf [accessed on 10/19/2010].
42. Apolone G, Mosconi P. The italian SF-36 Health Survey: translation, validation and norming. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1998; 51(11):1025-1036. DOI: 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00094-8.
43. Yanagi M, Kawasaki R, Wang JJ, Wong TY, Crowston J, Kiuchi Y. Vascular risk factors in glaucoma: a review. Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 2011; 39(3):252-258. DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2010.02455.x.
44. Resnikoff S, Pascolini D, Etya'ale D, Kocur I, Pararajasegaram R, Pokharel GP, Mariotti SP. Global data on visual impairment in the year 2002. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2004; 82:844-851.
45. Nicolosi A, Marighi PE, Rizzardi P, Osella A, Miglior S. Prevalence and causes of visual impairment in Italy. International Journal of Epidemiology 1994; 23(2):359-364.
46. Imai K, King G, Stuart EA. Misunderstandings between experimentalists and observationalists about causal inference. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A 2008; 171:481-502.
47. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician 1985; 39(1):33-38.
48. Sloan J, Symonds T, Vargas-Chanes D, Fridley B. Practical guidelines for assessing the clinical significance of health-related quality of life changes within clinical trials. Drug Information Journal 2003; 37(1):23-31.
49. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1994; 47:81-87. DOI: 10.1016/0895-4356(94)90036-1.