Literature DB >> 23849158

Prognostic score-based balance measures can be a useful diagnostic for propensity score methods in comparative effectiveness research.

Elizabeth A Stuart1, Brian K Lee, Finbarr P Leacy.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Examining covariate balance is the prescribed method for determining the degree to which propensity score methods should be successful at reducing bias. This study assessed the performance of various balance measures, including a proposed balance measure based on the prognostic score (similar to a disease risk score), to determine which balance measures best correlate with bias in the treatment effect estimate. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: The correlations of multiple common balance measures with bias in the treatment effect estimate produced by weighting by the odds, subclassification on the propensity score, and full matching on the propensity score were calculated. Simulated data were used, based on realistic data settings. Settings included both continuous and binary covariates and continuous covariates only.
RESULTS: The absolute standardized mean difference (ASMD) in prognostic scores, the mean ASMD (in covariates), and the mean t-statistic all had high correlations with bias in the effect estimate. Overall, prognostic scores displayed the highest correlations with bias of all the balance measures considered. Prognostic score measure performance was generally not affected by model misspecification, and the prognostic score measure performed well under a variety of scenarios.
CONCLUSION: Researchers should consider using prognostic score-based balance measures for assessing the performance of propensity score methods for reducing bias in nonexperimental studies.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Causal inference; Confounding; Disease risk score; Matching methods; Nonexperimental study; Propensity score diagnostics

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23849158      PMCID: PMC3713509          DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.01.013

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


  16 in total

1.  On principles for modeling propensity scores in medical research.

Authors:  Donald B Rubin
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 2.890

2.  Balance measures for propensity score methods: a clinical example on beta-agonist use and the risk of myocardial infarction.

Authors:  Rolf H H Groenwold; Frank de Vries; Anthonius de Boer; Wiebe R Pestman; Frans H Rutten; Arno W Hoes; Olaf H Klungel
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2011-09-23       Impact factor: 2.890

3.  Variable selection for propensity score models.

Authors:  M Alan Brookhart; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Kenneth J Rothman; Robert J Glynn; Jerry Avorn; Til Stürmer
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2006-04-19       Impact factor: 4.897

4.  A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study.

Authors:  Peter C Austin; Paul Grootendorst; Geoffrey M Anderson
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2007-02-20       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 5.  Use of disease risk scores in pharmacoepidemiologic studies.

Authors:  Patrick G Arbogast; Wayne A Ray
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2008-06-18       Impact factor: 3.021

6.  Systematic differences in treatment effect estimates between propensity score methods and logistic regression.

Authors:  Edwin P Martens; Wiebe R Pestman; Anthonius de Boer; Svetlana V Belitser; Olaf H Klungel
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2008-05-03       Impact factor: 7.196

7.  The implications of propensity score variable selection strategies in pharmacoepidemiology: an empirical illustration.

Authors:  Amanda R Patrick; Sebastian Schneeweiss; M Alan Brookhart; Robert J Glynn; Kenneth J Rothman; Jerry Avorn; Til Stürmer
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2011-03-10       Impact factor: 2.890

8.  Average causal effects from nonrandomized studies: a practical guide and simulated example.

Authors:  Joseph L Schafer; Joseph Kang
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2008-12

9.  High-dimensional propensity score adjustment in studies of treatment effects using health care claims data.

Authors:  Sebastian Schneeweiss; Jeremy A Rassen; Robert J Glynn; Jerry Avorn; Helen Mogun; M Alan Brookhart
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 4.822

10.  Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples.

Authors:  Peter C Austin
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2009-11-10       Impact factor: 2.373

View more
  103 in total

1.  The importance of health insurance claims data in creating learning health systems: evaluating care for high-need high-cost patients using the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORNet).

Authors:  Maureen A Smith; Mary S Vaughan-Sarrazin; Menggang Yu; Xinyi Wang; Peter A Nordby; Christine Vogeli; Jonathan Jaffery; Joshua P Metlay
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2019-11-01       Impact factor: 4.497

2.  A Simple Method for Evaluating Within Sample Prognostic Balance Achieved by Published Comorbidity Summary Measures.

Authors:  Brian L Egleston; Robert G Uzzo; J Robert Beck; Yu-Ning Wong
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-12-18       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Mental Health Services Provision in Primary Care and Emergency Department Settings: Analysis of Blended Fee-for-Service and Blended Capitation Models in Ontario, Canada.

Authors:  Thyna Vu; Kelly K Anderson; Nibene H Somé; Amardeep Thind; Sisira Sarma
Journal:  Adm Policy Ment Health       Date:  2021-01-05

4.  The "Dry-Run" Analysis: A Method for Evaluating Risk Scores for Confounding Control.

Authors:  Richard Wyss; Ben B Hansen; Alan R Ellis; Joshua J Gagne; Rishi J Desai; Robert J Glynn; Til Stürmer
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2017-05-01       Impact factor: 4.897

5.  Sample Selection for Medicare Risk Adjustment Due to Systematically Missing Data.

Authors:  Savannah L Bergquist; Thomas G McGuire; Timothy J Layton; Sherri Rose
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2018-09-11       Impact factor: 3.402

6.  Time-dependent prognostic score matching for recurrent event analysis to evaluate a treatment assigned during follow-up.

Authors:  Abigail R Smith; Douglas E Schaubel
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2015-08-21       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  Indeterminate QuantiFERON-TB Gold Increases Likelihood of Inflammatory Bowel Disease Treatment Delay and Hospitalization.

Authors:  Ravy K Vajravelu; Mark T Osterman; Faten N Aberra; Jason A Roy; Gary R Lichtenstein; Ronac Mamtani; David S Goldberg; James D Lewis; Frank I Scott
Journal:  Inflamm Bowel Dis       Date:  2017-12-19       Impact factor: 5.325

8.  Generalizing Treatment Effect Estimates From Sample to Population: A Case Study in the Difficulties of Finding Sufficient Data.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Stuart; Anna Rhodes
Journal:  Eval Rev       Date:  2016-08-04

9.  Antipsychotics and mortality: adjusting for mortality risk scores to address confounding by terminal illness.

Authors:  Yoonyoung Park; Jessica M Franklin; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Raisa Levin; Stephen Crystal; Tobias Gerhard; Krista F Huybrechts
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2015-03-06       Impact factor: 5.562

10.  Methods for constructing and assessing propensity scores.

Authors:  Melissa M Garrido; Amy S Kelley; Julia Paris; Katherine Roza; Diane E Meier; R Sean Morrison; Melissa D Aldridge
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-04-30       Impact factor: 3.402

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.