Propensity score: An alternative method of analyzing treatment effects - Part 23 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications;Propensity Score - eine alternative Methode zur Analyse von Therapieeffekten - Teil 23 der Serie zur Bewertung wissenschaftlicher Publikationen

Deutsches Arzteblatt International

Volumn 113, Issue 35-36, 2016, Pages 597-603

  Kuss, Oliver ^a   Blettner, Maria ^b   Börgermann, Jochen ^c  

^a Department of Orthopedic Surgery   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER MAINZ   (Germany)

^c RUHR UNIVERSITY BOCHUM   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; PROPENSITY SCORE; PUBLICATION; REVIEW; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PROCEDURES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; MODELS, STATISTICAL; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PROPENSITY SCORE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84988318589     PISSN: 18660452     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2016.0597     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. Black N: Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ 1996; 312:1215-8.
2. McKee M, Britton A, Black N, McPherson K, Sanderson C, Bain C: Methods in health services research. Interpreting the evidence: choosing between randomised and non-randomised studies. BMJ 1999; 319: 312-5.
3. Rothwell PM: External validity of randomised controlled trials: "to whom do the results of this trial apply?". Lancet 2005; 365: 82-93.
4. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB: The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70: 41-55.
5. Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S, Rothman KJ, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Stürmer T: Variable selection for propensity score models. Am J Epidemiol 2006; 163: 1149-56.
6. 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: 661-77.
7. Austin PC: Type I error rates, coverage of confidence intervals, and variance estimation in propensity-score matched analyses. Int J Biostat 2009; 5: Article 13.
8. Stuart EA, Marcus SM, Horvitz-Lennon MV, Gibbons RD, Normand SL: Using non-experimental data to estimate treatment effects. Psychiatr Ann 2009; 39: 719-28.
9. Austin PC: Propensity-score matching in the cardiovascular surgery literature from 2004 to 2006: a systematic review and suggestions for improvement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2007; 134: 1128-35.
10. Morgan SL, Harding DJ: Matching estimators of causal effectsd prospects and pitfalls in theory and practice. Sociological Methods Res 2006; 35: 3-60.
11. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S: Goodness of fit tests for the multiple logistic regression model. Commun Stat - Theor M 1980; 9: 1043-69.
12. Harrell FE: Regression modeling strategies. New York: Springer 2001; 257.
13. Weitzen S, Lapane KL, Toledano AY, Hume AL, Mor VM: Weaknesses of goodnessof- fit tests for evaluating propensity score models: the case of the omitted confounder. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2005; 14: 227-38.
14. Westreich D, Cole SR, Funk MJ, Brookhart MA, Stürmer T: The role of the c-statistic in variable selection for propensity score models. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2011; 20: 317-20.
15. Belitser SV, Martens EP, Pestman WR, Groenwold RH, de Boer A, Klungel OH: Measuring balance and model selection in propensity score methods. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2011; 20: 1115-29.
16. Börgermann J, Hakim K, Renner A, et al.: Clampless off-pump versus conventional coronary artery revascularization: a propensity score analysis of 788 patients. Circulation 2012; 126 (11 Suppl 1): S176-82.
17. 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: 150-61.
18. Kuss O: The z-difference can be used to measure covariate balance in matched propensity score analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 2013; 66: 1302-7.
19. Rubin DB, Thomas N: Matching using estimated propensity scores: relating theory to practice. Biometrics 1996; 52: 249-64.
20. Hedderich J, Sachs L: Angewandte Statistik. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer 2016; 264.
21. Rubin DB: The design versus the analysis of observational studies for causal effects: parallels with the design of randomized trials. Stat Med 2007; 26: 20-36.
22. Martens EP, de Boer A, Pestman WR, Belitser SV, Stricker BH, Klungel OH: Comparing treatment effects after adjustment with multivariable cox proportional hazards regression and propensity score methods. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2008; 17: 1-8.
23. Pattanayak CW, Rubin DB, Zell ER: [Propensity score methods for creating covariate balance in observational studies]. Rev Esp Cardiol 2011; 64: 897-903.
24. Cepeda MS, Boston R, Farrar JT, Strom BL: Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders. Am J Epidemiol 2003; 158: 280-7.
25. Braitman LE, Rosenbaum PR: Rare outcomes, common treatments: analytic strategies using propensity scores. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137: 693-5.
26. Anglemyer A, Horvath HT, Bero L: Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 4: MR000034.
27. Eichler M, Pokora R, Schwentner L, Blettner M: Evidenzbasierte Medizin - Möglichkeiten und Grenzen. Dtsch Arztebl 2015; 112: A 2190-2.
28. Manson JE, Hsia J, Johnson KC, et al., Women's Health Initiative Investigators: Estrogen plus progestin and the risk of coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 523-34.
29. Abel U, Koch A: The role of randomization in clinical studies: myths and beliefs. J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52:487-97.
30. Hernán MA, Alonso A, Logan R: Observational studies analyzed like randomized experiments: an application to postmenopausal hormone therapy and coronary heart disease. Epidemiology 2008; 19: 766-79.
31. Stuart EA: Matching methods for causal inference: a review and a look forward. Statistical Science 2010; 25: 1-21.
32. Borah BJ, Moriarty JP, Crown WH, Doshi JA: Applications of propensity score methods in observational comparative effectiveness and safety research: where have we come and where should we go? J Comp Eff Res 2014; 3: 63-78.