A Propensity-score-based Fine Stratification Approach for Confounding Adjustment When Exposure Is Infrequent

Epidemiology

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 249-257

  Desai, Rishi J ^a   Rothman, Kenneth J ^b,c   Bateman, Brian T ^a,d   Hernandez Diaz, Sonia ^e   Huybrechts, Krista F ^a  

^a BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b RTI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

^c BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^d MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^e HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATORVASTATIN; CERIVASTATIN; FLUINDOSTATIN; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL COENZYME A REDUCTASE INHIBITOR; MEVINOLIN; PRAVASTATIN; ROSUVASTATIN; SIMVASTATIN;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CHILD; CONFOUNDING VARIABLE; CONGENITAL MALFORMATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRUG EXPOSURE; FEMALE; FIRST TRIMESTER PREGNANCY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MIDDLE AGED; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROPENSITY SCORE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCHOOL CHILD; SIMULATION; STANDARDIZED MORTALITY RATIO; STATISTICAL MODEL; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONGENITAL DISORDER; EPIDEMIOLOGY; MALE; NEWBORN; PREGNANCY; PREVALENCE;

ADULT; COHORT STUDIES; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CONGENITAL ABNORMALITIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL-COA REDUCTASE INHIBITORS; INFANT, NEWBORN; LINEAR MODELS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY TRIMESTER, FIRST; PREVALENCE; PROPENSITY SCORE;

EID: 85001975654     PISSN: 10443983     EISSN: 15315487     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000595     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. R osenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70:41-55.
2. Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49:1373-1379.
3. A ustin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res. 2011;46:399-424.
4. Wang Z. Propensity score methods to adjust for confounding in assessing treatment effects: bias and precision. Int J Epidemiol. 2009;7:1-8.
5. A ustin PC, Mamdani MM. A comparison of propensity score methods: a case-study estimating the effectiveness of post-AMI statin use. Stat Med. 2006;25:2084-2106.
6. R osenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J Am Stat Assoc. 1984;79:516-524.
7. Cochran WG. The effectiveness of adjustment by subclassification in removing bias in observational studies. Biometrics. 1968;24:295-313.
8. 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.
9. Akers A. Determination of the optimal number of strata for bias reduction in propensity score matching. University of North Texas, 2010.
10. Bateman BT, Hernandez-Diaz S, Fischer MA, et al. Statins and congenital malformations: cohort study. BMJ. 2015;350:h1035.
11. Palmsten K, Huybrechts KF, Mogun H, et al. Harnessing the Medicaid Analytic eXtract (MAX) to evaluate medications in pregnancy: design considerations. PLoS One. 2013;8:e67405.
12. Margulis AV, Setoguchi S, Mittleman MA, Glynn RJ, Dormuth CR, Hernández-Díaz S. Algorithms to estimate the beginning of pregnancy in administrative databases. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2013;22:16-24.
13. Williamson T, Eliasziw M, Fick GH. Log-binomial models: exploring failed convergence. Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2013;10:14.
14. Skov T, Deddens J, Petersen MR, Endahl L. Prevalence proportion ratios: estimation and hypothesis testing. Int J Epidemiol. 1998;27:91-95.
15. McNutt LA, Wu C, Xue X, Hafner JP. Estimating the relative risk in cohort studies and clinical trials of common outcomes. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;157:940-943.
16. Ho D, Imai K, King G, Stuart EA. MatchIt: nonparametric preprocessing for parametric causal inference. J Stat Softw. 2011;42:28.
17. Ming K, Rosenbaum PR. Substantial gains in bias reduction from matching with a variable number of controls. Biometrics. 2000;56:118-124.
18. R assen JA, Shelat AA, Myers J, Glynn RJ, Rothman KJ, Schneeweiss S. One-to-many propensity score matching in cohort studies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21(Suppl 2):69-80.
19. A ustin PC, Stuart EA. Estimating the effect of treatment on binary outcomes using full matching on the propensity score. Stat Methods Med Res. 2015. Sep. pii: 0962280215601134. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26329750.
20. Brookhart MA, Wyss R, Layton JB, Stürmer T. Propensity score methods for confounding control in nonexperimental research. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2013;6:604-611.
21. 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.
22. G lynn RJ, Schneeweiss S, Stürmer T. Indications for propensity scores and review of their use in pharmacoepidemiology. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2006;98:253-259.
23. Poole C. Low P-values or narrow confidence intervals: which are more durable? Epidemiology. 2001;12:291-294.
24. Devore JL, Berk KN. Modern Mathematical Statistics with Applications. New York, NY: Springer; 2012.
25. A ustin PC. Using the standardized difference to compare the prevalence of a binary variable between two groups in observational research. Commun Stat Simulat Comput. 2009;38:1228-1234.
26. A rceneaux K, Nickerson DW. Modeling certainty with clustered data: a comparison of methods. Polit Anal. 2009;17:177-190.
27. Desai RJ RK, Bateman B, Hernandez-Diaz S, Huybrechts KF. Confounding control using propensity scores when the exposure is infrequent: making the case for a fine stratification approach. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Safety. 2015;24:1-587.