A systematic review of propensity score methods in the acute care surgery literature: avoiding the pitfalls and proposing a set of reporting guidelines

European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery

Volumn 44, Issue 3, 2018, Pages 385-395

  Zakrison, T L ^c   Austin, P C ^a   McCredie, V A ^b  

^a INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL EVALUATIVE SCIENCES   (Canada)

^b SUNNYBROOK RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI MILLER SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Acute care; Matching; Propensity score; Surgery; Trauma

Indexed keywords

HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HUMAN; INTENSIVE CARE; PROPENSITY SCORE; SURGERY;

CRITICAL CARE; HEALTH PLANNING GUIDELINES; HUMANS; PROPENSITY SCORE; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, OPERATIVE;

EID: 85016189836     PISSN: 18639933     EISSN: 16153146     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00068-017-0786-6     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivar Behav Res. 2011;46(3):399–424.
2. McMurry TL, Hu Y, Blackstone EH, Kozower BD. Propensity scores: methods, considerations, and applications in the. Journal of Thoracic Cardiovascular Surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;150(1):14–9.
3. Luo Z, Gardiner JC, Bradley CJ. Applying propensity score methods in medical research: pitfalls and prospects. Med Care Res Rev. 2010;67(5):528–54.
4. Austin PC. The relative ability of different propensity score methods to balance measured covariates between treated and untreated subjects in observational studies. Med Decis Mak. 2009;29(6):661–77.
5. Austin PC. A critical appraisal of propensity-score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003. Stat Med. 2008;27(12):2037–49.
6. Austin PC. Primer on statistical interpretation or methods report card on propensity-score matching in the cardiology literature from 2004 to 2006: a systematic review. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2008;1(1):62–7.
7. 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(5):1128–35.
8. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. New York: Wiley; 2011.
9. Panic N, Leoncini E, de Belvis G, Ricciardi W, Boccia S. Evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e83138.
10. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.
11. Gayat E, Pirracchio R, Resche-Rigon M, Mebazaa A, Mary JY, Porcher R. Propensity scores in intensive care and anaesthesiology literature: a systematic review. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36(12):1993–2003.
12. Inoue J, Shiraishi A, Yoshiyuki A, Haruta K, Matsui H, Otomo Y. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta might be dangerous in patients with severe torso trauma: a propensity score analysis. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016;80(4):559–67.
13. 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(4):734–53.
14. 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(2):150–61.
15. Austin PC. A comparison of 12 algorithms for matching on the propensity score. Stat Med. 2014;33(6):1057–69.
16. Austin PC. Some methods of propensity-score matching had superior performance to others: results of an empirical investigation and Monte Carlo simulations. Biom J. 2009;51(1):171–84.
17. Austin PC. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios. Stat Med. 2007;26(16):3078–94.
18. Austin PC. The use of propensity score methods with survival or time-to-event outcomes: reporting measures of effect similar to those used in randomized experiments. Stat Med. 2014;33(7):1242–58.
19. Morgan SL, Todd JL. A diagnostic routine for the detection of consequential heterogeneity of causal effects. Sociol Methodol. 2008;38:231–81.
20. Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med. 2009;28(25):3083–107.
21. Mitra R, Reiter JP. A comparison of two methods of estimating propensity scores after multiple imputation. Stat Methods Med Res. 2016;25(1):188–204.
22. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70(1):41–55.
23. Rassen 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.
24. Austin PC, Mamdani MM, Stukel TA, Anderson GM, Tu JV. The use of the propensity score for estimating treatment effects: administrative versus clinical data. Stat Med. 2005;24(10):1563–78.