A comparison of 12 algorithms for matching on the propensity score

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 33, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 1057-1069

  Austin, Peter C ^a,b,c  

^a INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL EVALUATIVE SCIENCES   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^c Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre   (Canada)

Author keywords

Computer algorithms; Matching; Monte Carlo simulations; Optimal matching; Propensity score; Propensity score matching

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER ALGORITHMS; MATCHING; MONTE CARLO SIMULATIONS; OPTIMAL MATCHING; PROPENSITY SCORE; PROPENSITY-SCORE MATCHING;

ALGORITHMS; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); BIOSTATISTICS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMANS; HYPOLIPIDEMIC AGENTS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; ONTARIO; PATIENT DISCHARGE; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS;

EID: 84893777424     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.6004     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70: 41-55.
2. Rosenbaum PR. Model-based direct adjustment. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1987; 82: 387-394.
3. Austin PC. Propensity-score matching in the cardiovascular surgery literature from 2004 to 2006: a systematic review and suggestions for improvement. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2007; 134(5):1128-1135.
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. Thoemmes FJ, Kim ES. A systematic review of propensity score methods in the social sciences. Multivariate Behavioral Research 2011; 46(1):90-118.
6. Austin PC. A report card on propensity-score matching in the cardiology literature from 2004 to 2006: a systematic review and suggestions for improvement. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes 2008; 1: 62-67.
7. Imbens GW. Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: a review. Review of Economics and Statistics 2004; 86: 4-29.
8. Rosenbaum PR. Observational Studies. Springer-Verlag: New York, NY, 2002.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Austin PC. Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2011; 10: 150-161.
12. Cochran WG, Rubin DB. Controlling bias in observational studies: a review. Sankhya: The Indian Journal of Statistics 1973; 35: 416-466.
13. Tu JV, Donovan LR, Lee DS, Wang JT, Austin PC, Alter DA, Ko DT. Effectiveness of public report cards for improving the quality of cardiac care: the EFFECT study: a randomized trial. Journal of the American Medical Association 2009; 302(21):2330-2337.
14. Tu JV, Donovan LR, Lee DS, Austin PC, Ko DT, Wang JT, Newman AM. Quality of cardiac care in Ontario, Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences: Toronto, Ontario, 2004.
15. 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.
16. Sturmer T, Joshi M, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Rothman KJ, Schneeweiss S. A review of the application of propensity score methods yielded increasing use, advantages in specific settings, but not substantially different estimates compared with conventional multivariable methods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2006; 59(5):437-447.
17. 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.
18. Flury BK, Riedwyl H. Standard distance in univariate and multivariate analysis. The American Statistician 1986; 40: 249-251.
19. Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Statistics in Medicine 2009; 28(25):3083-3107.
20. Austin PC. A tutorial on the use of propensity scoremethods with survival or time-to-event outcomes: Reporting measures of effect similar to those used in randomized experiments. Statistics in Medicine In press. DOI: 10.1002/sim.5984.
21. Austin PC, Mamdani MM. A comparison of propensity scoremethods: A case-study estimating the effectiveness of post-AMI statin use. Statistics in Medicine 2006; 25: 2084-2106. DOI: 10.1002/sim.2328.
22. Hill J, Reiter JP. Interval estimation for treatment effects using propensity score matching. Statistics in Medicine 2006; 25(13):2230-2256.
23. Ming K, Rosenbaum PR. Substantial gains in bias reduction from matching with a variable number of controls. Biometrics 2000; 56(1):118-124.
24. Gu XS, Rosenbaum PR. Comparison of multivariate matching methods: structures, distances, and algorithms. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 1993; 2: 405-420.
25. 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.