Matching weights to simultaneously compare three treatment groups comparison to three-way matching

Epidemiology

Volumn 28, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 387-395

  Yoshida, Kazuki ^a   Hernández Díaz, Sonia ^a   Solomon, Daniel H ^b   Jackson, John W ^a,c   Gagne, Joshua J ^b   Glynn, Robert J ^a,b   Franklin, Jessica M ^b  

^a HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CYCLOOXYGENASE 2 INHIBITOR; NONSTEROID ANTIINFLAMMATORY AGENT; ANALGESIC AGENT; NARCOTIC ANALGESIC AGENT; PROSTAGLANDIN SYNTHASE INHIBITOR;

ARTICLE; BOOTSTRAPPING; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; EMPIRICISM; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROPENSITY SCORE; SAMPLE SIZE; ADULT; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; CHEMICALLY INDUCED; EPIDEMIOLOGY; FEMALE; FRACTURE; GASTROINTESTINAL HEMORRHAGE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL;

ADULT; ANALGESICS; ANALGESICS, OPIOID; ANTI-INFLAMMATORY AGENTS, NON-STEROIDAL; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; CYCLOOXYGENASE INHIBITORS; EPIDEMIOLOGIC METHODS; FEMALE; FRACTURES, BONE; GASTROINTESTINAL HEMORRHAGE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROPENSITY SCORE; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS;

EID: 85011663032     PISSN: 10443983     EISSN: 15315487     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000627     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Greenland S, Neutra R. Control of confounding in the assessment of medical technology. Int J Epidemiol. 1980;9:361-367.
2. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70:41-55.
3. Rassen JA, Shelat AA, Franklin JM, Glynn RJ, Solomon DH, Schneeweiss S. Matching by propensity score in cohort studies with three treatment groups. Epidemiology. 2013;24:401-409.
4. Imbens GW. The role of the propensity score in estimating dose-response functions. Biometrika. 2000;87:706-710.
5. Hernán MA, Robins JM. Estimating causal effects from epidemiological data. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60:578-586.
6. Li L, Greene T. A weighting analogue to pair matching in propensity score analysis. Int J Biostat. 2013;9:215-234.
7. Hernán 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.
8. 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.
9. Sato T, Matsuyama Y. Marginal structural models as a tool for standardization. Epidemiology. 2003;14:680-686.
10. Imbens GW. Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: A review. Rev Econ Stat. 2004;86:4-29.
11. Xu S, Ross C, Raebel MA, Shetterly S, Blanchette C, Smith D. Use of stabilized inverse propensity scores as weights to directly estimate relative risk and its confidence intervals. Value Health. 2010;13:273-277.
12. Franklin JM, Rassen JA, Ackermann D, Bartels DB, Schneeweiss S. Metrics for covariate balance in cohort studies of causal effects. Stat Med. 2014;33:1685-1699.
13. Greenland S, Robins JM, Pearl J. Confounding and collapsibility in causal inference. Statist Sci. 1999;14:29-46.
14. Cummings P. The relative merits of risk ratios and odds ratios. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2009;163:438-445.
15. Yee TW. VGAM: Vector Generalized Linear and Additive Models. 2015. Available at: http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/VGAM/index.html. Accessed 13 July 2015.
16. Zou G. A modified Poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159:702-706.
17. Lumley T. Complex Surveys: A Guide to Analysis Using R. 1st ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2010.
18. Horvitz DG, Thompson DJ. A generalization of sampling without replacement from a finite universe. J Am Stat Assoc. 1952;47:663-685.
19. Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res. 2011;46:399-424.
20. Austin PC, Stuart EA. Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Stat Med. 2015;34:3661-3679.
21. Austin PC, Small DS. The use of bootstrapping when using propensity- score matching without replacement: A simulation study. Stat Med. 2014;33:4306-4319.
22. Stuart EA. Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Stat Sci. 2010;25:1-21.
23. Solomon DH, Rassen JA, Glynn RJ, Lee J, Levin R, Schneeweiss S. The comparative safety of analgesics in older adults with arthritis. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:1968-1976.
24. Yoshida K, Solomon DH, Kim SC. Active-comparator design and newuser design in observational studies. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2015;11:437- 441.
25. Robins JM, Hernán MA, Brumback B. Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology. Epidemiology. 2000;11:550-560.
26. Petersen ML, Porter KE, Gruber S, Wang Y, van der Laan MJ. Diagnosing and responding to violations in the positivity assumption. Stat Methods Med Res. 2012;21:31-54.
27. Crump RK, Hotz VJ, Imbens GW, Mitnik OA. Dealing with limited overlap in estimation of average treatment effects. Biometrika. 2009;96:187- 199.
28. Stürmer T, Rothman KJ, Avorn J, Glynn RJ. Treatment effects in the presence of unmeasured confounding: dealing with observations in the tails of the propensity score distribution-Asimulation study. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172:843-854.
29. Walker A, Patrick, Lauer, et al. A tool for assessing the feasibility of comparative effectiveness research. Comp Eff Res. 2013;2013:11-20.