Use and Interpretation of Propensity Scores in Aging Research: A Guide for Clinical Researchers

Journal of the American Geriatrics Society

Volumn 64, Issue 10, 2016, Pages 2065-2073

  Kim, Dae Hyun ^a,b   Pieper, Carl F ^c   Ahmed, Ali ^d   Colón Emeric, Cathleen S ^c,e  

^a BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d University of Alabama at Birmingham   (United States)

^e DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

confounding; observational research; propensity score

Indexed keywords

DIPEPTIDYL CARBOXYPEPTIDASE INHIBITOR;

AGED; AGING; ARTICLE; CARDIOVASCULAR MORTALITY; CASE STUDY; CAUSE OF DEATH; CLINICAL OUTCOME; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CONFOUNDING VARIABLE; COVARIANCE; HEART FAILURE; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTAL VARIABLE ANALYSIS; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MEDICAL SOCIETY; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROBABILITY; PROPENSITY SCORE; REGISTER; SYMPOSIUM; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; GERIATRIC ASSESSMENT; GERIATRICS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PROCEDURES; STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

AGED; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; GERIATRIC ASSESSMENT; GERIATRICS; HUMANS; OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES AS TOPIC; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PROPENSITY SCORE;

EID: 84992061294     PISSN: 00028614     EISSN: 15325415     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jgs.14253     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Mujib M, Patel K, Fonarow GC et al. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and outcomes in heart failure and preserved ejection fraction. Am J Med 2013;126:401–410.
2. Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. Modern Epidemiology, 3rd Ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1998.
3. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983;70:41–55.
4. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J Am Stat Assoc 1984;79:516–524.
5. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Am Stat 1985;39:33–38.
6. Austin PC. A tutorial and case study in propensity score analysis: An application to estimating the effect of in-hospital smoking cessation counseling on mortality. Multivariate Behav Res 2011;46:119–151.
7. D'Agostino RB Jr. Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med 1998;17:2265–2281.
8. Rassen JA, Shelat AA, Franklin JM et al. Matching by propensity score in cohort studies with three treatment groups. Epidemiology 2013;24:401–409.
9. Setoguchi S, Schneeweiss S, Brookhart MA et al. Evaluating uses of data mining techniques in propensity score estimation: A simulation study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2008;17:546–555.
10. Lee BK, Lessler J, Stuart EA. Improving propensity score weighting using machine learning. Stat Med 2010;29:337–346.
11. Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S, Rothman KJ et al. Variable selection for propensity score models. Am J Epidemiol 2006;163:1149–1156.
12. Patrick AR, Schneeweiss S, Brookhart MA et al. The implications of propensity score variable selection strategies in pharmacoepidemiology: An empirical illustration. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2011;20:551–559.
13. Walker AM. Matching on provider is risky. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:S65–S68.
14. Hernan MA, Hernandez-Diaz S, Werler MM et al. Causal knowledge as a prerequisite for confounding evaluation: An application to birth defects epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol 2002;155:176–184.
15. Rubin DB. Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:757–763.
16. Ray WA. Evaluating medication effects outside of clinical trials: New-user designs. Am J Epidemiol 2003;158:915–920.
17. Glynn RJ, Schneeweiss S, Sturmer T. Indications for propensity scores and review of their use in pharmacoepidemiology. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 2006;98:253–259.
18. Garrido MM, Kelley AS, Paris J et al. Methods for constructing and assessing propensity scores. Health Serv Res 2014;49:1701–1720.
19. Normand ST, Landrum MB, Guadagnoli E et al. Validating recommendations for coronary angiography following acute myocardial infarction in the elderly: A matched analysis using propensity scores. J Clin Epidemiol 2001;54:387–398.
20. Ho DE, Imai K, King G et al. Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Polit Anal 2007;15:199–236.
21. Imai K, King G, Stuart EA. Misunderstandings between experimentalists and observationalists about causal inference. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc 2008;171:481–502.
22. 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. Stat Med 2007;26:734–753.
23. Austin PC. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios. Stat Med 2007;26:3078–3094.
24. 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.
25. Funk MJ, Westreich D, Wiesen C et al. Doubly robust estimation of causal effects. Am J Epidemiol 2011;173:761–767.
26. King G, Nielson R. Why Propensity Scores Should Not Be Used for Matching, 2016 [on-line]. Available at http://j.mp/1sexgVw Accessed January 4, 2016.
27. 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.
28. Austin PC. A comparison of 12 algorithms for matching on the propensity score. Stat Med 2014;33:1057–1069.
29. Stuart EA. Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Stat Sci 2010;25:1–21.
30. 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;134:1128–1135.
31. Austin PC. A critical appraisal of propensity-score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003. Stat Med 2008;27:2037–2049.
32. Abadie A, Imbens GW. On the failure of the bootstrap for matching estimators. Econometrica 2008;76:1537–1557.
33. Hernan MA, Brumback B, Robins JM. Marginal structural models to estimate the causal effect of zidovudine on the survival of HIV-positive men. Epidemiology 2000;11:561–570.
34. Robins JM, Hernan MA, Brumback B. Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology. Epidemiology 2000;11:550–560.
35. Lee BK, Lessler J, Stuart EA. Weight trimming and propensity score weighting. PLoS ONE 2011;6:e18174.
36. McCaffrey DF, Ridgeway G, Morral AR. Propensity score estimation with boosted regression for evaluating causal effects in observational studies. Psychol Methods 2004;9:403–425.
37. Cole SR, Hernan MA. Constructing inverse probability weights for marginal structural models. Am J Epidemiol 2008;168:656–664.
38. 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.
39. Cook EF, Goldman L. Performance of tests of significance based on stratification by a multivariate confounder score or by a propensity score. J Clin Epidemiol 1989;42:317–324.
40. Shah BR, Laupacis A, Hux JE et al. Propensity score methods gave similar results to traditional regression modeling in observational studies: A systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:550–559.
41. Sturmer 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.
42. Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res 2011;46:399–424.
43. Drake C. Effects of misspecification of the propensity score on estimators of treatment effect. Biometrics 1993;49:1231–1236.
44. Cepeda MS, Boston R, Farrar JT et al. Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders. Am J Epidemiol 2003;158:280–287.
45. Confounding Fitzmaurice G. Regression adjustment. Nutrition 2006;22:581–583.
46. Rubin D. Using propensity scores to help design observational studies: Application to the tobacco litigation. Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol 2001;2:169–188.
47. Ahmed A, Ekundayo OJ. Cardiovascular disease care in the nursing home: The need for better evidence for outcomes of care and better quality for processes of care. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2009;10:1–3.
48. Schneeweiss S. Sensitivity analysis and external adjustment for unmeasured confounders in epidemiologic database studies of therapeutics. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2006;15:291–303.
49. Liu W, Kuramoto SJ, Stuart EA. An introduction to sensitivity analysis for unobserved confounding in nonexperimental prevention research. Prev Sci 2013;14:570–580.
50. Dormuth CR, Patrick AR, Shrank WH et al. Statin adherence and risk of accidents: A cautionary tale. Circulation 2009;119:2051–2057.
51. Schneeweiss S, Patrick AR, Sturmer T et al. Increasing levels of restriction in pharmacoepidemiologic database studies of elderly and comparison with randomized trial results. Med Care 2007;45:S131–142.
52. McGrath LJ, Ellis AR, Brookhart MA. Controlling time-dependent confounding by health status and frailty: Restriction versus statistical adjustment. Am J Epidemiol 2015;182:17–25.
53. Wang PS, Bohn RL, Glynn RJ et al. Zolpidem use and hip fractures in older people. J Am Geriatr Soc 2001;49:1685–1690.
54. Schneeweiss S, Setoguchi S, Brookhart MA et al. Assessing residual confounding of the association between antipsychotic medications and risk of death using survey data. CNS Drugs 2009;23:171–180.
55. Schneeweiss S, Wang PS. Association between SSRI use and hip fractures and the effect of residual confounding bias in claims database studies. J Clin Psychopharmacol 2004;24:632–638.
56. Schneeweiss S, Wang PS. Claims data studies of sedative-hypnotics and hip fractures in older people: Exploring residual confounding using survey information. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005;53:948–954.
57. Vanderweele TJ, Arah OA. Bias formulas for sensitivity analysis of unmeasured confounding for general outcomes, treatments, and confounders. Epidemiology 2011;22:42–52.