Comparison of Propensity Score Methods and Covariate Adjustment: Evaluation in 4 Cardiovascular Studies

Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Volumn 69, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 345-357

  Elze, Markus C ^a,b   Gregson, John ^a   Baber, Usman ^c   Williamson, Elizabeth ^a   Sartori, Samantha ^c   Mehran, Roxana ^c   Nichols, Melissa ^d,e   Stone, Gregg W ^d,e   Pocock, Stuart J ^a  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

^b F HOFFMANN LA ROCHE LTD   (Switzerland)

^c MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d NewYork Presbyterian Hospital   (United States)

^e CARDIOVASCULAR RESEARCH FOUNDATION   (United States)

Author keywords

bias; comparison of methods; observational studies; regression

Indexed keywords

CARDIOLOGY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; COVARIATE ADJUSTMENT; HUMAN; INVERSE PROBABILITY WEIGHTING; MEASUREMENT PRECISION; PROPENSITY SCORE; REVIEW; STATISTICAL PARAMETERS; STRATIFIED SAMPLE; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PROBABILITY;

CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; HUMANS; PROBABILITY; PROPENSITY SCORE;

EID: 85009990579     PISSN: 07351097     EISSN: 15583597     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.060     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. 1 Rothwell, P.M., External validity of randomised controlled trials: “to whom do the results of this trial apply?”. Lancet 365 (2005), 82–93.
2. 2 Harrell, F. Jr., Lee, K.L., Califf, R.M., et al. Regression modelling strategies for improved prognostic prediction. Stat Med 3 (1984), 143–152.
3. 3 Vittinghoff, E., McCulloch, C.E., Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and Cox regression. Am J Epidemiol 165 (2007), 710–718.
4. 4 Park, D.W., Seung, K.B., Kim, Y.H., et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of stenting versus coronary artery bypass grafting for unprotected left main coronary artery disease: 5-year results from the MAIN-COMPARE (Revascularization for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: Comparison of Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty Versus Surgical Revascularization) registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 56 (2010), 117–124.
5. 5 Ramos, R., Garcá-Gil, M., Comas-Cuf, M., et al. Statins for prevention of cardiovascular events in a low-risk population with low ankle brachial index. J Am Coll Cardiol 67 (2016), 630–640.
6. 6 Tamburino, C., Barbanti, M., D'Errigo, P., et al., for the OBSERVANT Research Group. 1-Year outcomes after transfemoral transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement: results from the Italian OBSERVANT Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 66 (2015), 804–812.
7. 7 Solomon, M.D., Go, A.S., Shilane, D., et al. Comparative effectiveness of clopidogrel in medically managed patients with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 63 (2014), 2249–2257.
8. 8 Rosenbaum, P.R., Rubin, D.B., The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70 (1983), 41–55.
9. 9 Senn, S., Graf, E., Caputo, A., Stratification for the propensity score compared with linear regression techniques to assess the effect of treatment or exposure. Stat Med 26 (2007), 5529–5544.
10. 10 Austin, P.C., An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res 46 (2011), 399–424.
11. 11 Williamson, E., Morley, R., Lucas, A., et al. Propensity scores: from naive enthusiasm to intuitive understanding. Stat Methods Med Res 21 (2012), 273–293.
12. 12 Heinze, G., Jüni, P., An overview of the objectives of and the approaches to propensity score analyses. Eur Heart J 32 (2011), 1704–1708.
13. 13 Swedberg, K., Pfeffer, M., Granger, C., et al., for the Charm-Programme Investigators. Candesartan in heart failure–assessment of reduction in mortality and morbidity (CHARM): rationale and design. J Card Fail 5 (1999), 276–282.
14. 14 Stone, G.W., Witzenbichler, B., Weisz, G., et al., for the ADAPT-DES Investigators. Platelet reactivity and clinical outcomes after coronary artery implantation of drug-eluting stents (ADAPT-DES): a prospective multicentre registry study. Lancet 382 (2013), 614–623.
15. 15 Smeeth, L., Douglas, I., Hall, A.J., et al. Effect of statins on a wide range of health outcomes: a cohort study validated by comparison with randomized trials. Br J Clin Pharmacol 67 (2009), 99–109.
16. 16 Heart Protective Study Collaborative Group. MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin in 20,536 high-risk individuals: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 360 (2002), 7–22.
17. 17 Wayangankar, S.A., Baber, U., Poddar, K., et al. Predictors of 1 year net adverse cardiovascular events (NACE) among ACS patients undergoing PCI with clopidogrel or prasugrel: analysis from the PROMETHEUS registry. J Am Coll Cardiol, 67, 2016, 562.
18. 18 Myers, J.A., Rassen, J.A., Gagne, J.J., et al. Effects of adjusting for instrumental variables on bias and precision of effect estimates. Am J Epidemiol 174 (2011), 1213–1222.
19. 19 Fisher, R., The Design of Experiments. 9th edition, 1971, Macmillan, London, UK.
20. 20 Stuart, E.A., Developing practical recommendations for the use of propensity scores: discussion of “A critical appraisal of propensity score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003” by Peter Austin. Stat Med 27 (2008), 2062–2065 discussion 2066–9.
21. 21 Kang, J.D.Y., Schafer, J.L., Demystifying double robustness: a comparison of alternative strategies for estimating a population mean from incomplete data. Stat Sci 22 (2007), 523–539.
22. 22 D'Agostino, R.B. Jr., Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med 17 (1998), 2265–2281.
23. 23 Joffe, M.M., Ten Have, T.R., Feldman, H.I., et al. Model selection, confounder control, and marginal structural models. Am Stat 58 (2004), 272–279.
24. 24 Mosteller, F., Tukey, J.W., Data Analysis and Regression: A Second Course in Statistics. 1977, Pearson, London, UK.
25. 25 Rosenbaum, P.R., Rubin, D.B., Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J Am Stat Assoc 79 (1984), 516–524.
26. 26 Cochran, W.G., The effectiveness of adjustment by subclassification in removing bias in observational studies. Biometrics 24 (1968), 295–313.
27. 27 Hullsiek, K.H., Louis, T.A., Propensity score modeling strategies for the causal analysis of observational data. Biostatistics 2 (2002), 179–193.
28. 28 Austin, P.C., The relative ability of different propensity score methods to balance measured covariates between treated and untreated subjects in observational studies. Med Decis Making 29 (2009), 661–677.
29. 29 Lunceford, J.K., Davidian, M., Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of causal treatment effects: a comparative study. Stat Med 23 (2004), 2937–2960.
30. 30 Glynn, R.J., Schneeweiss, S., Stürmer, T., Indications for propensity scores and review of their use in pharmacoepidemiology. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 98 (2006), 253–259.
31. 31 Stürmer, T., Rothman, K.J., Glynn, R.J., Insights into different results from different causal contrasts in the presence of effect-measure modification. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 15 (2006), 698–709.