Elizabeth A Stuart1, Brian K Lee, Finbarr P Leacy. 1. Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 North Broadway, Hampton House, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. estuart@jhsph.edu
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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