Propensity score estimators for the average treatment effect and the average treatment effect on the treated may yield very different estimates

Statistical Methods in Medical Research

Volumn 25, Issue 5, 2016, Pages 1938-1954

  Pirracchio, R ^a,b,c   Carone, M ^c   Rigon, M Resche ^a   Caruana, E ^a   Mebazaa, A ^d   Chevret, S ^a  

^a INSERM   (France)

^b HÔPITAL EUROPÉEN GEORGES POMPIDOU   (France)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d University of Paris   (France)

Author keywords

average treatment effect; average treatment on the treated; inverse probability weighting; matching; positivity assumption; propensity score

Indexed keywords

HOSPITAL MORTALITY; HUMAN; MONTE CARLO METHOD; POSITIVE END EXPIRATORY PRESSURE; PROBABILITY; PROPENSITY SCORE; ADULT; AGED; FEMALE; HEART FAILURE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MORTALITY; REPRODUCIBILITY; UTILIZATION; VERY ELDERLY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CONTINUOUS POSITIVE AIRWAY PRESSURE; FEMALE; HEART FAILURE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PROPENSITY SCORE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 84989822204     PISSN: 09622802     EISSN: 14770334     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0962280213507034     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Gayat E, Pirracchio R, Resche-Rigon M, et al. Propensity scores in intensive care and anaesthesiology literature: a systematic review. Intensive Care Med 2010; 36: 1993-2003.
2. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB,. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70: 41-55.
3. Lunceford JK, Davidian M,. Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of causal treatment effects: a comparative study. Stat Med 2004; 23: 2937-2960.
4. Austin PC,. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios. Stat Med 2007; 26: 3078-3094.
5. Austin PC,. The performance of different propensity-score methods for estimating relative risks. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61: 537-545.
6. Austin PC,. The performance of different propensity-score methods for estimating differences in proportions (risk differences or absolute risk reductions) in observational studies. Stat Med 2010; 29: 2137-2148.
7. 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: 661-677.
8. Gayat E, Resche-Rigon M, Mary J-Y, et al. Propensity score applied to survival data analysis through proportional hazards models: a Monte Carlo study. Pharm Stat. Epub ahead of print 12 March 2012. DOI: 10.1002/pst.537.
9. Austin PC,. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal hazard ratios. Stat Med 2013; 32: 2837-2849.
10. Rosenbaum PR,. Model-Based Direct Adjustment. J Am Stat Assoc 1987; 82: 387-394.
11. Hirano K, Imbens GW,. Estimation of causal effects using propensity score weighting: an application to data on right heart catheterization. Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol 2001; 2: 259-278.
12. Hirano K, Imbens GW, Ridder G,. Efficient estimation of average treatment effects using the estimated propensity score. Econometrica 2003; 71: 1161-1189.
13. Imbens GW,. Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: a review. Rev Econ Stat 2004; 86: 4-29.
14. Heckman JJ, Vytlacil E,. Policy-relevant treatment effects. Am Econ Rev 2001; 91: 107-111.
15. Stürmer T, Joshi M, Glynn RJ, et al. 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. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59: 437-447.
16. Sato T, Matsuyama Y,. Marginal structural models as a tool for standardization. Epidemiology 2003; 14: 680-686.
17. Westreich D, Cole SR,. Invited commentary: positivity in practice. Am J Epidemiol 2010; 171: 674-677. discussion 678-681.
18. Kurth T, Walker AM, Glynn RJ, et al. Results of multivariable logistic regression, propensity matching, propensity adjustment, and propensity-based weighting under conditions of nonuniform effect. Am J Epidemiol 2006; 163: 262-270.
19. Nieminen MS, Böhm M, Cowie MR, et al. Executive summary of the guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of acute heart failure: the Task Force on Acute Heart Failure of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2005; 26: 384-416.
20. Mebazaa A, Parissis J, Porcher R, et al. Short-term survival by treatment among patients hospitalized with acute heart failure: the global ALARM-HF registry using propensity scoring methods. Intensive Care Med 2011; 37: 290-301.
21. Follath F, Yilmaz MB, Delgado JF, et al. Clinical presentation, management and outcomes in the acute heart failure global survey of standard treatment (ALARM-HF). Intensive Care Med 2011; 37: 619-626.
22. Schechtman E,. Odds ratio, relative risk, absolute risk reduction, and the number needed to treat-which of these should we use? Value in Health 2002; 5: 431-436.
23. Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S, Rothman KJ, et al. Variable selection for propensity score models. Am J Epidemiol 2006; 163: 1149-1156.
24. Abadie A, Imbens GW,. Large sample properties of matching estimators for average treatment effects. Econometrica 2006; 74: 235-267.
25. Petersen ML, Porter KE, Gruber S, et al. Diagnosing and responding to violations in the positivity assumption. Stat Methods Med Res 2012; 21: 31-54.
26. Austin PC,. A data-generation process for data with specified risk differences or numbers needed to treat. Commun Stat-Simul Comput 2010; 39: 563-577.
27. Greenland S,. Interpretation and choice of effect measures in epidemiologic analyses. Am J Epidemiol 1987; 125: 761-768.
28. 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: 150-161.
29. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB,. Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J Am Stat Assoc 1984; 79: 516-524.
30. Bersten AD, Holt AW, Vedig AE, et al. Treatment of severe cardiogenic pulmonary edema with continuous positive airway pressure delivered by face mask. N Engl J Med 1991; 325: 1825-1830.
31. Lin M, Yang YF, Chiang HT, et al. Reappraisal of continuous positive airway pressure therapy in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema. Short-term results and long-term follow-up. Chest 1995; 107: 1379-1386.
32. Plaisance P, Pirracchio R, Berton C, et al. A randomized study of out-of-hospital continuous positive airway pressure for acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema: physiological and clinical effects. Eur Heart J 2007; 28: 2895-2901.
33. Weng C-L, Zhao Y-T, Liu Q-H, et al. Meta-analysis: noninvasive ventilation in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema. Ann Intern Med 2010; 152: 590-600.
34. Gray A, Goodacre S, Newby DE, et al. Noninvasive ventilation in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema. N Engl J Med 2008; 359: 142-151.
35. Lee BK, Lessler J, Stuart EA,. Weight trimming and propensity score weighting. PLoS One 2011; 6: e18174-e18174.
36. Robins JM, Hernán MA, Brumback B,. Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology. Epidemiology 2000; 11: 550-560.