Reporting and Guidelines in Propensity Score Analysis: A Systematic Review of Cancer and Cancer Surgical Studies

Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Volumn 109, Issue 8, 2017, Pages

  Yao, Xiaoxin I ^a   Wang, Xiaofei ^b   Speicher, Paul J ^c   Hwang, E Shelley ^c   Cheng, Perry ^a   Harpole, David H ^c   Berry, Mark F ^d   Schrag, Deborah ^e   Pang, Herbert H ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^b DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^e DANA FARBER HARVARD CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER RESEARCH; CANCER SURGERY; DIGESTIVE SYSTEM CANCER; HUMAN; LUNG CANCER; MALIGNANT NEOPLASM; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROPENSITY SCORE; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; UROGENITAL TRACT CANCER; ALGORITHM; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; NEOPLASMS; PUBLICATION; RESEARCH; STANDARDS; TRENDS;

ALGORITHMS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; NEOPLASMS; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PROPENSITY SCORE; RESEARCH DESIGN; RESEARCH REPORT;

EID: 85021080339     PISSN: 00278874     EISSN: 14602105     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djw323     Document Type: Review

References (39)

1. Pocock SJ, Elbourne DR. Randomized trials or observational tribulations? N Engl J Med. 2000;342(25):1907-1909.
2. Black N. Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ. 1996;312(7040):1215-1218.
3. Silverman SL. From randomized controlled trials to observational studies. Am J Med. 2009;122(2):114-120.
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. 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(19): 2265-2281.
6. 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):2937-2960.
7. D'Agostino RB Jr. Propensity scores in cardiovascular research. Circulation. 2007;115(17):2340-2343.
8. Austin PC. A critical appraisal of propensity-score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003. Stat Med. 2008;27(12):2037-2049.
9. Stuart EA. Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Stat Sci. 2010;25(1):1-21.
10. Ioannidis JPA, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):166-175.
11. Phelps RM, Dearing MP, Mulshine JL. Need for uniformity in collection and reporting of data in cancer clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1990;82(17): 1377-1378.
12. Lunt M. Selecting an appropriate caliper can be essential for achieving good balance with propensity score matching. Am J Epidemiol. 2014;179(2):226-235.
13. Franklin JM, Rassen JA, Ackermann D, et al. Metrics for covariate balance in cohort studies of causal effects. Stat Med. 2014;33(10):1685-1699.
14. Drake C. Effects of misspecification of the propensity score on estimators of treatment effect. Biometrics. 1993;49(4):1231-1236.
15. Rubin DB. Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(8 pt 2):757-763.
16. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159-174.
17. McMurry TL, Hu Y, Blackstone EH, et al. Propensity scores: Methods, considerations, and applications in the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;150(1):14-19.
18. Normand ST, Landrum MB, Guadagnoli E, et al. Validating recommendations for coronary angiography following acute myocardial infarction in the elderly: A matched analysis using propensity scores. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54(4): 387-398.
19. Caliendo M, Kopeinig S. Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. J Econ Surv. 2008;22(1):31-72.
20. Rubin DB. The design versus the analysis of observational studies for causal effects: Parallelswith the design of randomized trials. Stat Med. 2007;26(1):20-36.
21. Rubin DB. On the limitations of comparative effectiveness research. Stat Med. 2010;29(19):1991-1995.
22. Walker A, Patrick Lauer, et al. A tool for assessing the feasibility of comparative effectiveness research. Com Eff Res. 2013;3:11-20.
23. Dupuy A, Simon RM. Critical review of published microarray studies for cancer outcome and guidelines on statistical analysis and reporting. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(2):147-157.
24. Wang R, Lagakos SW, Ware JH, et al. Statistics in medicine-reporting of subgroup analyses in clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(21):2189-2194.
25. Raghav KP, Mahajan S, Yao JC, et al. From protocols to publications: A study in selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials in oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(31):3583-3590.
26. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(4):344-349.
27. McCaffrey DF, Griffin BA, Almirall D, et al. A tutorial on propensity score estimation for multiple treatments using generalized boosted models. Stat Med. 2013;32(19):3388-3414.
28. Månsson R, Joffe MM, Sun W, et al. On the estimation and use of propensity scores in case-control and case-cohort studies. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;166(3): 332-339.
29. Lu B. Propensity score matching with time-dependent covariates. Biometrics. 2005;61(3):721-728.
30. Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S, Rothman KJ, et al. Variable selection for propensity score models. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163(12):1149-1156.
31. Rothman KJ,, Greenland S,, Lash TL. Modern Epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins; 2008.
32. Cepeda MS. Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;158(3):280-287.
33. Rosenbaum PR. Propensity Score. In: Armitage P, Colton T, eds. Encyclopedia of Biostatistics. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Wiley; 2005:4267-4272.
34. Austin PC. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal hazard ratios. Stat Med. 2013;32(16):2837-2849.
35. Shah BR, Laupacis A, Hux JE, et al. Propensity score methods gave similar results to traditional regression modeling in observational studies: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(6):550-559.
36. Sturmer T, Joshi M, Glynn RJ, et al. A review of the application of propensity score methods yielded increasing use, advantages in specific settings, but not substantially different estimates compared with conventional multivariable methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(5):437-447.
37. Knol MJ, VanderWeele TJ. Recommendations for presenting analyses of effect modification and interaction. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41(2):514-520.
38. Bramer WM, Giustini D, Kramer BM, et al. The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2013; 2:115.
39. Halladay CW, Trikalinos TA, Schmid IT, et al. Using data sources beyond PubMed has a modest impact on the results of systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(9):1076-1084.