Double-adjustment in propensity score matching analysis: choosing a threshold for considering residual imbalance

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2017, Pages

  Nguyen, Tri Long ^a,b   Collins, Gary S ^c   Spence, Jessica ^b   Daurès, Jean Pierre ^a   Devereaux, P J ^b   Landais, Paul ^a,d   Le Manach, Yannick ^b  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTPELLIER   (France)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^d NÎMES UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (France)

Author keywords

Causal inference; Confounding; Covariate balance; Propensity score

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMAN; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PROPENSITY SCORE; STATISTICAL BIAS; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ALGORITHMS; BIAS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PROPENSITY SCORE;

EID: 85018170006     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12874-017-0338-0     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Ali MS, Groenwold RH, Belitser SV, Pestman WR, Hoes AW, Roes KC, Boer A, Klungel OH. Reporting of covariate selection and balance assessment in propensity score analysis is suboptimal: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(2):112-21.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70(1):41-55.
5. Austin PC. Assessing balance in measured baseline covariates when using many-to-one matching on the propensity-score. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2008;17(12):1218-25.
6. 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.
7. King G, Nielsen R. Why Propensity Scores Should Not Be Used for Matching. 2016. Available at: http://gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/psnot.pdf?m = 1456683191. Accessed 9 Apr 2017.
8. Abadie A, Imbens GW. Bias-corrected matching estimators for average treatment effects. J Bus Econ Stat. 2011;29(1):1-11.
9. Normand ST, Landrum MB, Guadagnoli E, Ayanian JZ, Ryan TJ, Cleary PD, McNeil BJ. Validating recommendations for coronary angiography following acute myocardial infarction in the elderly: a matched analysis using propensity scores. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54(4):387-98.
10. 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(12):1373-9.
11. Vittinghoff E, McCulloch CE. Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and Cox regression. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;165(6):710-8.
12. Peduzzi P, Concato J, Feinstein AR, Holford TR. Importance of events per independent variable in proportional hazards regression analysis. II. Accuracy and precision of regression estimates. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48(12):1503-10.
13. Vascular Events In Noncardiac Surgery Patients Cohort Evaluation Study Investigators, Devereaux PJ, Chan MT, Alonso-Coello P, Walsh M, Berwanger O, Villar JC, Wang CY, Garutti RI, Jacka MJ, et al. Association between postoperative troponin levels and 30-day mortality among patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. JAMA. 2012;307(21):2295-304.
14. Botto F, Alonso-Coello P, Chan MT, Villar JC, Xavier D, Srinathan S, Guyatt G, Cruz P, Graham M, Wang CY, et al. Myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery: a large, international, prospective cohort study establishing diagnostic criteria, characteristics, predictors, and 30-day outcomes. Anesthesiology. 2014;120(3):564-78.
15. Setoguchi S, Schneeweiss S, Brookhart MA, Glynn RJ, Cook EF. Evaluating uses of data mining techniques in propensity score estimation: a simulation study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2008;17(6):546-55.
16. Lee TH, Marcantonio ER, Mangione CM, Thomas EJ, Polanczyk CA, Cook EF, Sugarbaker DJ, Donaldson MC, Poss R, Ho KK, et al. Derivation and prospective validation of a simple index for prediction of cardiac risk of major noncardiac surgery. Circulation. 1999;100(10):1043-9.
17. Poise Study Group, Devereaux PJ, Yang H, Yusuf S, Guyatt G, Leslie K, Villar JC, Xavier D, Chrolavicius S, Greenspan L, et al. Effects of extended-release metoprolol succinate in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery (POISE trial): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2008;371(9627):1839-47.
18. Schouten O, Boersma E, Hoeks SE, Benner R, van Urk H, van Sambeek MR, Verhagen HJ, Khan NA, Dunkelgrun M, Bax JJ, et al. Fluvastatin and perioperative events in patients undergoing vascular surgery. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(10):980-9.
19. Pearse RM, Harrison DA, MacDonald N, Gillies MA, Blunt M, Ackland G, Grocott MP, Ahern A, Griggs K, Scott R, et al. Effect of a perioperative, cardiac output-guided hemodynamic therapy algorithm on outcomes following major gastrointestinal surgery: a randomized clinical trial and systematic review. JAMA. 2014;311(21):2181-90.
20. 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.
21. Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S, Rothman KJ, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Sturmer T. Variable selection for propensity score models. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163(12):1149-56.
22. Pearl J. Invited commentary: understanding bias amplification. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;174(11):1223-7. discussion pg 1228-1229.
23. Austin PC. Statistical criteria for selecting the optimal number of untreated subjects matched to each treated subject when using many-to-one matching on the propensity score. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172(9):1092-7.
24. Austin PC. A comparison of 12 algorithms for matching on the propensity score. Stat Med. 2014;33(6):1057-69.
25. Austin PC: Double propensity-score adjustment: A solution to design bias or bias due to incomplete matching. Statistical methods in medical research 2014. doi:10.1177/0962280214543508.
26. Ho DE, Imai K, King G, Stuart EA. Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Polit Anal. 2006;15(3):199-236.
27. Imai K, King G, Stuart EA. Misunderstandings among Experimentalists and Observationalists about Causal Inference. J R Stat Soc A. 2008;171(2):481-502.
28. Austin PC, Stuart EA. The performance of inverse probability of treatment weighting and full matching on the propensity score in the presence of model misspecification when estimating the effect of treatment on survival outcomes. Statistical methods in medical research 2015. doi:10.1177/0962280215584401.
29. Austin PC, Stuart EA: Estimating the effect of treatment on binary outcomes using full matching on the propensity score. Statistical methods in medical research 2015. doi:10.1177/0962280215601134.
30. Austin PC, Stuart EA. Optimal full matching for survival outcomes: a method that merits more widespread use. Stat Med. 2015;34(30):3949-67.
31. Lunceford JK, Davidian M. Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of causal treatment effects: a comparative study. Stat Med. 2004;23(19):2937-60.
32. Caruana E, Chevret S, Resche-Rigon M, Pirracchio R. A new weighted balance measure helped to select the variables to be included in a propensity score model. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(12):1415-22. e2.
33. Belitser SV, Martens EP, Pestman WR, Groenwold RH, de Boer A, Klungel OH. Measuring balance and model selection in propensity score methods. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011;20(11):1115-29.
34. Ho DE, Imai K, King G, Stuart EA. Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Polit Anal. 2007;15:199-236.
35. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The bias due to incomplete matching. Biometrics. 1985;41(1):103-16.