Literature DB >> 17187347

The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios.

Peter C Austin1.   

Abstract

The propensity score which is the probability of exposure to a specific treatment conditional on observed variables. Conditioning on the propensity score results in unbiased estimation of the expected difference in observed responses to two treatments. In the medical literature, propensity score methods are frequently used for estimating odds ratios. The performance of propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios has not been studied. We performed a series of Monte Carlo simulations to assess the performance of propensity score matching, stratifying on the propensity score, and covariate adjustment using the propensity score to estimate marginal odds ratios. We assessed bias, precision, and mean-squared error (MSE) of the propensity score estimators, in addition to the proportion of bias eliminated due to conditioning on the propensity score. When the true marginal odds ratio was one, then matching on the propensity score and covariate adjustment using the propensity score resulted in unbiased estimation of the true treatment effect, whereas stratification on the propensity score resulted in minor bias in estimating the true marginal odds ratio. When the true marginal odds ratio ranged from 2 to 10, then matching on the propensity score resulted in the least bias, with a relative biases ranging from 2.3 to 13.3 per cent. Stratifying on the propensity score resulted in moderate bias, with relative biases ranging from 15.8 to 59.2 per cent. For both methods, relative bias was proportional to the true odds ratio. Finally, matching on the propensity score tended to result in estimators with the lowest MSE. (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17187347     DOI: 10.1002/sim.2781

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  78 in total

1.  Applying propensity scores estimated in a full cohort to adjust for confounding in subgroup analyses.

Authors:  Jeremy A Rassen; Robert J Glynn; Kenneth J Rothman; Soko Setoguchi; Sebastian Schneeweiss
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2011-12-08       Impact factor: 2.890

Review 2.  Propensity scores in intensive care and anaesthesiology literature: a systematic review.

Authors:  Etienne Gayat; Romain Pirracchio; Matthieu Resche-Rigon; Alexandre Mebazaa; Jean-Yves Mary; Raphaël Porcher
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2010-08-06       Impact factor: 17.440

3.  Type I error rates, coverage of confidence intervals, and variance estimation in propensity-score matched analyses.

Authors:  Peter C Austin
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2009-04-14       Impact factor: 0.968

4.  Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Stuart
Journal:  Stat Sci       Date:  2010-02-01       Impact factor: 2.901

5.  Effects of xanthine oxidase inhibitors on cardiovascular disease in patients with gout: a cohort study.

Authors:  Seoyoung C Kim; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Niteesh Choudhry; Jun Liu; Robert J Glynn; Daniel H Solomon
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2015-02-03       Impact factor: 4.965

6.  The impact of unmeasured baseline effect modification on estimates from an inverse probability of treatment weighted logistic model.

Authors:  Joseph A C Delaney; Robert W Platt; Samy Suissa
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2009-05-06       Impact factor: 8.082

7.  Low-molecular-weight heparin prophylaxis of deep vein thrombosis for older patients with restricted mobility: propensity analyses of data from two multicentre, cross-sectional studies.

Authors:  José Labarère; Marie-Antoinette Sevestre; Joël Belmin; Annie Legagneux; Marie-Thérèse Barrellier; Hélène Thiel; Philippe Le Roux; Gilles Pernod; Jean-Luc Bosson
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 3.923

Review 8.  Propensity score methods to control for confounding in observational cohort studies: a statistical primer and application to endoscopy research.

Authors:  Jeff Y Yang; Michael Webster-Clark; Jennifer L Lund; Robert S Sandler; Evan S Dellon; Til Stürmer
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2019-04-30       Impact factor: 9.427

9.  First do no harm: population-based study shows non-evidence-based trastuzumab prescription may harm elderly women with breast cancer.

Authors:  Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Ying Xu; Wenli Dong; Fabrice Smieliauskas; Sharon Giordano; Yu Shen
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2014-02-21       Impact factor: 4.872

10.  Toward a better understanding of when to apply propensity scoring: a comparison with conventional regression in ethnic disparities research.

Authors:  Yu Ye; Jason C Bond; Laura A Schmidt; Nina Mulia; Tammy W Tam
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2012-08-14       Impact factor: 3.797

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.