Comments on 'The use of propensity scores and observational data to estimate randomized controlled trial generalizability bias' by Taylor R. Pressler and Eloise E. Kaizar, Statistics in Medicine 2013

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 33, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 536-537

  Schmidt, Amand F ^a,b,c   Hoes, Arno W ^a   Groenwold, Rolf H H ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^b UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DATA ANALYSIS; DIABETES MELLITUS; DRUG USE; GENERALIZABILITY BIAS; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; LETTER; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PATIENT CODING; POPULATION RISK; PROPENSITY SCORE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL BIAS; TREATMENT PLANNING;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PROPENSITY SCORE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84891818553     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.5929     Document Type: Letter

References (6)

1. Van Spall HG, Toren A, Kiss A, Fowler RA. Eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials published in high-impact general medical journals: a systematic sampling review. JAMA 2007; 297(11):1233-1240.
2. Lee PY, Alexander KP, Hammill BG, Pasquali SK, Peterson ED. Representation of elderly persons and women in published randomized trials of acute coronary syndromes. JAMA 2001; 286(6):708-713.
3. Bugeja G, Kumar A, Banerjee AK. Exclusion of elderly people from clinical research: a descriptive study of published reports. BMJ 1997; 315(7115):1059.
4. Pressler TR, Kaizar EE. The use of propensity scores and observational data to estimate randomized controlled trial generalizability bias. Statistics in Medicine 2013. DOI: 10.1002/sim.5802.
5. Schmidt AF, Rovers MM, Klungel OH, Hoes AW, Knol MJ, Nielen M, de BA, Groenwold RH. Differences in interaction and subgroup-specific effects were observed between randomized and nonrandomized studies in three empirical examples. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2013; 66(6):599-607.
6. Berlin JA, Santanna J, Schmid CH, Szczech LA, Feldman HI. Individual patient- versus group-level data meta-regressions for the investigation of treatment effect modifiers: ecological bias rears its ugly head. Statistics in Medicine 2002; 21(3):371-387.