Peter C Austin1. 1. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, the Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. peter.austin@ices.on.ca
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: I conducted a systematic review of the use of propensity score matching in the cardiovascular surgery literature. I examined the adequacy of reporting and whether appropriate statistical methods were used. METHODS: I examined 60 articles published in the Annals of Thoracic Surgery, European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery, Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery, and the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2006. RESULTS: Thirty-one of the 60 studies did not provide adequate information on how the propensity score-matched pairs were formed. Eleven (18%) of studies did not report on whether matching on the propensity score balanced baseline characteristics between treated and untreated subjects in the matched sample. No studies used appropriate methods to compare baseline characteristics between treated and untreated subjects in the propensity score-matched sample. Eight (13%) of the 60 studies explicitly used statistical methods appropriate for the analysis of matched data when estimating the effect of treatment on the outcomes. Two studies used appropriate methods for some outcomes, but not for all outcomes. Thirty-nine (65%) studies explicitly used statistical methods that were inappropriate for matched-pairs data when estimating the effect of treatment on outcomes. Eleven studies did not report the statistical tests that were used to assess the statistical significance of the treatment effect. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of propensity score-matched samples tended to be poor in the cardiovascular surgery literature. Most statistical analyses ignored the matched nature of the sample. I provide suggestions for improving the reporting and analysis of studies that use propensity score matching.
OBJECTIVE: I conducted a systematic review of the use of propensity score matching in the cardiovascular surgery literature. I examined the adequacy of reporting and whether appropriate statistical methods were used. METHODS: I examined 60 articles published in the Annals of Thoracic Surgery, European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery, Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery, and the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2006. RESULTS: Thirty-one of the 60 studies did not provide adequate information on how the propensity score-matched pairs were formed. Eleven (18%) of studies did not report on whether matching on the propensity score balanced baseline characteristics between treated and untreated subjects in the matched sample. No studies used appropriate methods to compare baseline characteristics between treated and untreated subjects in the propensity score-matched sample. Eight (13%) of the 60 studies explicitly used statistical methods appropriate for the analysis of matched data when estimating the effect of treatment on the outcomes. Two studies used appropriate methods for some outcomes, but not for all outcomes. Thirty-nine (65%) studies explicitly used statistical methods that were inappropriate for matched-pairs data when estimating the effect of treatment on outcomes. Eleven studies did not report the statistical tests that were used to assess the statistical significance of the treatment effect. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of propensity score-matched samples tended to be poor in the cardiovascular surgery literature. Most statistical analyses ignored the matched nature of the sample. I provide suggestions for improving the reporting and analysis of studies that use propensity score matching.
Authors: Hae-Young Lopilly Park; Na Young Lee; Chan Kee Park; Man Soo Kim Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2012-03-23 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Maria Trojano; Mar Tintore; Xavier Montalban; Jan Hillert; Tomas Kalincik; Pietro Iaffaldano; Tim Spelman; Maria Pia Sormani; Helmut Butzkueven Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2017-01-13 Impact factor: 42.937
Authors: Stephanie Watkins; Michele Jonsson-Funk; M Alan Brookhart; Steven A Rosenberg; T Michael O'Shea; Julie Daniels Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2013-05-23 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Chuntao Wu; Songyang Zhao; Andrew S Wechsler; Stephen Lahey; Gary Walford; Alfred T Culliford; Jeffrey P Gold; Craig R Smith; David R Holmes; Spencer B King; Robert S D Higgins; Desmond Jordan; Edward L Hannan Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2011-10-19 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Meritxell Mellado; Javier Trujillo-Santos; Behnood Bikdeli; David Jiménez; Manuel Jesús Núñez; Martin Ellis; Pablo Javier Marchena; Jerónimo Ramón Vela; Albert Clara; Farès Moustafa; Manuel Monreal Journal: Intern Emerg Med Date: 2019-05-03 Impact factor: 3.397