The use of propensity score methods with survival or time-to-event outcomes: Reporting measures of effect similar to those used in randomized experiments

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 33, Issue 7, 2014, Pages 1242-1258

  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

Confounding; Event history analysis; Inverse probability of treatment weighting; Marginal effects; Observational study; Propensity score; Propensity score matching; Survival analysis

Indexed keywords

HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL COENZYME A REDUCTASE INHIBITOR;

ACUTE HEART INFARCTION; ARTICLE; COVARIANCE; DEATH; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HAZARD RATIO; HUMAN; PROBABILITY; PROPENSITY SCORE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SURVIVAL; SURVIVAL RATE; TIME TO EVENT OUTCOME; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CONFOUNDING; EVENT HISTORY ANALYSIS; INVERSE PROBABILITY OF TREATMENT WEIGHTING; MARGINAL EFFECTS; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PROPENSITY SCORE; PROPENSITY SCORE MATCHING; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS;

AGED; CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); FEMALE; HUMANS; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL-COA REDUCTASE INHIBITORS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY AS TOPIC; PROPENSITY SCORE; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84896729825     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.5984     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D.Consort 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. British Medical Journal 2010; 340:c332. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c332.
2. Austin PC, Laupacis A. A tutorial on methods to estimating clinically and policy-meaningful measures of treatment effects in prospective observational studies: a review. International Journal of Biostatistics 2011; 7(1):Article 6. DOI: 10.2202/1557-4679.1285.
3. Laupacis A, Sackett DL, Roberts RS. An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment. New England Journal of Medicine 1988; 318:1728-1733.
4. Cook RJ, Sackett DL. The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. British Medical Journal 1995; 310(6977):452-454.
5. Jaeschke R, Guyatt G, Shannon H, Walter S, Cook D, Heddle N.Basic statistics for clinicians: 3. Assessing the effects of treatment: measures of association. Canadian Medical Association Journal 1995; 152(3):351-357.
6. 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.
7. Rubin DB.Matched sampling for causal effects. Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, 2006.
8. Rubin DB. The design versus the analysis of observational studies for causal effects: parallels with the design of randomized trials. Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26(1):20-36.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L. Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. Journal of the American Medical Association 2001; 285:1992-1995.
12. Rubin DB. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology 1974; 66:688-701.
13. Imbens GW. Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: a review. Review of Economics and Statistics 2004; 86:4-29.
14. 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.
15. Greenland S.Interpretation and choice of effect measures in epidemiologic analyses. American Journal of Epidemiology 1987; 125(5):761-768.
16. Miettinen OS, Cook EF. Confounding essence and detection. American Journal of Epidemiology 1981; 4:593-603.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70:41-55.
20. Rosenbaum PR. Model-based direct adjustment. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1987; 82:387-394.
21. 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.
22. Rosenbaum PR. Propensity score. In Encyclopedia of Biostatistics. Armitage P, Colton T (eds). John Wiley & Sons: Boston, 2005; 4267-4272.
23. Rosenbaum PR. Quality of Cardiac Care in Ontario. Springer-Verlag: New York, NY, 2010.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. Gu XS, Rosenbaum PR. Comparison of multivariate matching methods: structures, distances, and algorithms. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 1993; 2:405-420.
27. Hansen BB. Full matching in an observational study of coaching for the SAT. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2004; 99(467):609-618.
28. Ming K, Rosenbaum PR. Substantial gains in bias reduction from matching with a variable number of controls. Biometrics 2000; 56(1):118-124.
29. Stuart EA. Matching methods for causal inference: a review and a look forward. Statistical Science 2010; 25(1):1-21.
30. Austin PC. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal hazard ratios. Stastisics in Medicine 2013; 32(16):2837-2849. DOI: 10.1002/sim.5705.
31. Austin PC. Type I error rates, coverage of confidence intervals, and variance estimation in propensity-score matched analyses. International Journal of Biostatistics 2009; 5(1). DOI: 10.2202/1557-4679.1146.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. Rosenbaum PR.Observational studies. Springer-Verlag: New York, NY, 2002.
35. 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.
36. Klein JP, Moeschberger ML.Survival Analysis: Techniques for Censored and Truncated Data. Springer-Verlag: New York, NY, 1997.
37. Harrington D.Linear rank tests in survival analysis. In Encyclopedia of Biostatistics. Armitage P, Colton T (eds). John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, 2005; 2802-2812.
38. Lin DY, Wei LJ. The robust inference for the proportional hazards model. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1989; 84:1074-1078.
39. Therneau TM, Grambsch PM.Modeling Survival Data: Extending the Cox Model. Springer-Verlag: New York, 2000.
40. Robins JM, Hernan MA, Brumback B. Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology. Epidemiology 2000; 11(5):550-560.
41. Cole SR, Hernan MA. Adjusted survival curves with inverse probability weights. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine 2004; 75:45-49.
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. Lee BK, Lessler J, Stuart EA. Weight trimming and propensity score weighting. PLoS One 2011; 6(3):e18174.
45. Morgan SL, Todd JL. A diagnostic routine for the detection of consequential heterogeneity of causal effects. Sociological Methodology 2008; 38:231-281.
46. 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.
47. Rubin DB. On principles for modeling propensity scores in medical research. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 2004; 13(12):855-857.
48. Austin PC. Goodness-of-fit diagnostics for the propensity score model when estimating treatment effects using covariate adjustment with the propensity score. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 2008; 17(12):1202-1217.
49. 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.
50. 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.
51. Austin PC. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating difference in proportions (risk differences or absolute risk reductions) in observational studies. Statistics in Medicine 2010; 29:2137-2148. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3854.
52. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Assessing sensitivity to an unobserved binary covariate in an observational study with binary outcome. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society - Series B 1983; 45:212-218.
53. Tu J, Donovan LR, Lee DS, Austin PC, Ko DT, Wang JT, Newman AM.Quality of Cardiac Care. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences: Toronto, ON, 2004.
54. 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.
55. Austin PC, Mamdani MM. A comparison of propensity score methods: a case-study estimating the effectiveness of post-AMI statin use. Statistics in Medicine 2006; 25(12):2084-2106.
56. Normand ST, Landrum MB, Guadagnoli E, Ayanian JZ, Ryan TJ, Cleary PD, McNeil BJ. Validating recommendations for coronary angiography following acute myocardial infarction in the elderly: a matched analysis using propensity scores. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2001; 54(4):387-398.
57. Ko DT, Mamdani M, Alter DA. Lipid-lowering therapy with statins in high-risk elderly patients: the treatment-risk paradox. Journal of the American Medical Association 2004; 291:1864-1870.
58. Lee DS, Tu JV, Juurlink DN, Alter DA, Ko DT, Austin PC, Chong A, Stukel TA, Levy D, Laupacis A.Risk-treatment mismatch in the pharmacotherapy of heart failure. Journal of the American Medical Association 2005; 294(10):1240-1247.
59. Harrell, F E Jr.Regression modeling strategies. Springer-Verlag: New York, NY, 2001.
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. Imai K, King G, Stuart EA. Misunderstandings between experimentalists and observationalists about causal inference. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society - Series A (Statistics in Society) 2008; 171:481-502.
63. Hansen BB, Bowers J. Covariate balance in simple, stratified and clustered comparative studies. Statistical Science 2008; 23:219-236.
64. Lu B. Propensity score matching with time-dependent covariates. Biometrics 2005; 61(3):721-728.