Head to head comparison of the propensity score and the high-dimensional propensity score matching methods

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  Guertin, Jason R ^a,b   Rahme, Elham ^c,d   Dormuth, Colin R ^e   Lelorier, Jacques ^f  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF THE MCGILL UNIVERSITY HEALTH CENTRE   (Canada)

^d MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^f CENTRE HOSPITALIER DE L UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Confounding by indication; High dimensional propensity scores; Propensity scores

Indexed keywords

HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL COENZYME A REDUCTASE INHIBITOR;

ADULT; AGE; AGED; CASE CONTROL STUDY; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; EPIDEMIOLOGY; FACTUAL DATABASE; FEMALE; HUMAN; HYPERLIPIDEMIAS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; ODDS RATIO; PROCEDURES; PROPENSITY SCORE; QUEBEC; REFERENCE VALUE; SEX DIFFERENCE; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DATABASES, FACTUAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL-COA REDUCTASE INHIBITORS; HYPERLIPIDEMIAS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; ODDS RATIO; PROPENSITY SCORE; QUEBEC; REFERENCE VALUES; SEX FACTORS;

EID: 84959576899     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12874-016-0119-1     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Groenwold RH, Hak E, Hoes AW. Quantitative assessment of unobserved confounding is mandatory in nonrandomized intervention studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(1):22-8.
2. Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivar Behav Res. 2011;46(3):399-424.
3. Shrank WH, Patrick AR, Brookhart MA. Healthy user and related biases in observational studies of preventive interventions: A primer for physicians. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(5):546-50.
4. Austin PC. The relative ability of different propensity score methods to balance measured covariates between treated and untreated subjects in observational studies. Med Decis Making. 2009;29(6):661-77.
5. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70(1):41-55.
6. Black CM, Tadrous M, Cadarette SM. Diffusion of methodological innovation in pharmacoepidemiology: High-dimensional propensity score co-authorship network analysis. CAPT; Toronto: J Popul Ther Clin Pharmacol. 2013;21(1):e138.
7. Schneeweiss S, Rassen JA, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Mogun H, Brookhart MA. High-dimensional propensity score adjustment in studies of treatment effects using health care claims data. Epidemiology. 2009;20(4):512-22.
8. Belitser SV, Martens EP, Pestman WR, Groenwold RHH, de Boer A, Klungel OH. Measuring balance and model selection in propensity score methods. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011;20(11):1115-29.
9. Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med. 2009;28(25):3083-107.
10. Mamdani M, Sykora K, Li P, Normand SL, Streiner DL, Austin PC, et al. Reader's guide to critical appraisal of cohort studies: 2. Assessing potential for confounding. BMJ. 2005;330(7497):960-2.
11. Ali MS, Groenwold RHH, Pestman WR, Belitser SV, Roes KCB, Hoes AW, et al. Propensity score balance measures in pharmacoepidemiology: A simulation study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2014;23(8):802-11.
12. Garbe E, Kloss S, Suling M, Pigeot I, Schneeweiss S. High-dimensional versus conventional propensity scores in a comparative effectiveness study of coxibs and reduced upper gastrointestinal complications. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2012;69:549-57.
13. Polinski JM, Schneeweiss S, Glynn RJ, Lii J, Rassen JA. Confronting "confounding by health system use" in Medicare Part D: Comparative effectiveness of propensity score approaches to confounding adjustment. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21:90-8.
14. Rassen JA, Glynn RJ, Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S. Covariate selection in high-dimensional propensity score analyses of treatment effects in small samples. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173(12):1404-13.
15. Preiss D, Seshasai SR, Welsh P, Murphy SA, Ho JE, Waters DD, et al. Risk of incident diabetes with intensive-dose compared with moderate-dose statin therapy: A meta-analysis. JAMA. 2011;305(24):2556-64.
16. Ko DT, Wijeysundera HC, Jackevicius CA, Yousef A, Wang J, Tu JV. Diabetes and cardiovascular events in older myocardial infarction patients prescribed intensive-dose and moderate-dose statins. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2013;6:315-22.
17. Carter AA, Gomes T, Camacho X, Juurlink DN, Shah BR, Mamdani MM. Risk of incident diabetes among patients treated with statins: Population based study. BMJ. 2013;346:f2610.
18. Dormuth CR, Filion KB, Paterson JM, James MT, Teare GF, Raymond CB, et al. Higher potency statins and the risk of new diabetes: Multicentre, observational study of administrative databases. BMJ. 2014;348:g3244.
19. Wang K-L, Liu C-J, Chao T-F, Huang C-M, Wu C-H, Chen S-J, et al. Statins, risk of diabetes, and implications on outcomes in the general population. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(14):1231-8.
20. Zaharan NL, Williams D, Bennett K. Statins and risk of treated incident diabetes in a primary care population. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2013;75(4):1118-24.
21. Soucy A. Québec Handy Numbers, 2015 Edition. Québec: Institut de la statistique du Québec; 2015.
22. Blais C, Lambert L, Hamel D, Brown K, Rinfret S, Cartier R, et al. Évaluation des soins et surveillance des maladies cardiovasculaires: Pouvons-nous faire confiance aux donneés médico-administratives hospitalières ? Montreal: Institut national d'excellence en santé et en services sociaux (INESSS); 2012.
23. Lambert L, Blais C, Hamel D, Brown K, Rinfret S, Cartier R, et al. Evaluation of care and surveillance of cardiovascular disease: Can we trust medico-administrative hospital data? Can J Cardiol. 2012;28(2):162-8.
24. Tamblyn R, Lavoie G, Petrella L, Monette J. The use of prescription claims databases in pharmacoepidemiological research: The accuracy and comprehensiveness of the prescription claims database in Quebec. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48(8):999-1009.
25. Tamblyn R, Reid T, Mayo N, McLeod P, Churchill-Smith M. Using medical services claims to assess injuries in the elderly: Sensitivity of diagnostic and procedure codes for injury ascertainment. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(2):183-94.
26. World Health Organisation Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. ATC/DDD Index [July 23rd 2014]. Available from: Http://www.whocc.no/atc-ddd-index/.
27. Law MR, Wald NJ, Rudnicka AR. Quantifying effect of statins on low density lipoprotein cholesterol, ischaemic heart disease, and stroke: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2003;326(7404):1423.
28. Sturmer T, Rothman KJ, Avorn J, Glynn RJ. Treatment effects in the presence of unmeasured confounding: Dealing with observations in the tails of the propensity score distribution-a simulation study. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172(7):843-54.
29. Austin PC. Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharm Stat. 2011;10(2):150-61.
30. Franklin JM, Schneeweiss S, Polinski JM, Rassen JA. Plasmode simulation for the evaluation of pharmacoepidemiologic methods in complex healthcare databases. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2014;72:219-26.
31. Westreich D, Lessler J, Funk MJ. Propensity score estimation: Neural networks, support vector machines, decision trees (CART), and meta-classifiers as alternatives to logistic regression. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(8):826-33.
32. Lee BK, Lessler J, Stuart EA. Improving propensity score weighting using machine learning. Stat Med. 2010;29(3):337-46.