Literature DB >> 23800533

Within-center matching performed better when using propensity score matching to analyze multicenter survival data: empirical and Monte Carlo studies.

Etienne Gayat1, Gabriel Thabut, Jason D Christie, Alexandre Mebazaa, Jean-Yves Mary, Raphaël Porcher.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Propensity score (PS) methods are applied frequently to multicenter data. To date, methods for handling cluster effect when analyzing PS-matched data have not been assessed for survival data. Accordingly, the objective of the present study was to determine the optimal PS-model to account for a potential cluster effect when analysing multicenter observational data. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: In the current study, five strategies were compared. One analyzed the original sample and four used global or within-cluster matching using a global or a cluster-specific PS. All were applied to simulated data sets and to two cohorts.
RESULTS: Failing to account for clustering in the PS model led to a biased estimate of the treatment effect and to an inflated test size. Within-cluster matching using either a global or a cluster-specific PS led to the lowest mean squared error and to a test size close to its nominal value. However, the cluster-specific approach led to a drastic reduction of sample size compared with the global PS one. Analyses of the cohorts confirmed that the latter model led to the smallest sample size, but also necessitated the discard of a high number of clusters from the matched sample.
CONCLUSION: In the considered simulation scenarios, within-cluster matching using a global PS presented the best balance between sample size and bias reduction, and it should be used when applying PS methods to clustered observational survival data.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bias; Cluster; Observational data; Propensity score; Simulation; Survival

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23800533     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.03.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  5 in total

1.  Update in lung transplantation 2013.

Authors:  Jamie L Todd; Jason D Christie; Scott M Palmer
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2014-07-01       Impact factor: 21.405

2.  Evaluating possible confounding by prescriber in comparative effectiveness research.

Authors:  Jessica M Franklin; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Krista F Huybrechts; Robert J Glynn
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 4.822

Review 3.  Analytic and Data Sharing Options in Real-World Multidatabase Studies of Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Medical Products.

Authors:  Sengwee Toh
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2020-01-24       Impact factor: 6.875

4.  Comparative effectiveness analysis of Medicare dialysis facility survey processes.

Authors:  Sehee Kim; Fan Wu; Claudia Dahlerus; Deanna Chyn; Yi Li; Joseph M Messana
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-04-26       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Evaluating the performance of propensity score matching based approaches in individual patient data meta-analysis.

Authors:  Fatema Tuj Johara; Andrea Benedetti; Robert Platt; Dick Menzies; Piret Viiklepp; Simon Schaaf; Edward Chan
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2021-11-23       Impact factor: 4.615

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.