Literature DB >> 24478163

Propensity score balance measures in pharmacoepidemiology: a simulation study.

M Sanni Ali1, Rolf H H Groenwold, Wiebe R Pestman, Svetlana V Belitser, Kit C B Roes, Arno W Hoes, Anthonius de Boer, Olaf H Klungel.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Conditional on the propensity score (PS), treated and untreated subjects have similar distribution of observed baseline characteristics when the PS model is appropriately specified. The performance of several PS balance measures in assessing the balance of covariates achieved by a specific PS model and selecting the optimal PS model was evaluated in simulation studies. However, these studies involved only normally distributed covariates. Comparisons in binary or mixed covariate distributions with rare outcomes, typical of pharmacoepidemiologic settings, are scarce.
METHODS: Monte Carlo simulations were performed to examine the performance of different balance measures in terms of selecting an optimal PS model, thus reduction in bias. The balance of covariates between treatment groups was assessed using the absolute standardized difference, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov distance, the Lévy distance, and the overlapping coefficient. Spearman's correlation coefficient (r) between each of these balance measures and bias were calculated.
RESULTS: In large sample sizes (n ≥ 1000), all balance measures were similarly correlated with bias (r ranging between 0.50 and 0.68) irrespective of the treatment effect's strength and frequency of the outcome. In smaller sample sizes with mixed binary and continuous covariate distributions, these correlations were low for all balance measures (r ranging between 0.11 and 0.43), except for the absolute standardized difference (r = 0.51).
CONCLUSIONS: The absolute standardized difference, which is an easy-to-calculate balance measure, displayed consistently better performance across different simulation scenarios. Therefore, it should be the balance measure of choice for measuring and reporting the amount of balance reached, and for selecting the final PS model.
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords:  balance measure; confounding; model selection; pharmacoepidemiology; propensity score

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24478163     DOI: 10.1002/pds.3574

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf        ISSN: 1053-8569            Impact factor:   2.890


  17 in total

1.  Constructing Causal Diagrams for Common Perinatal Outcomes: Benefits, Limitations and Motivating Examples with Maternal Antidepressant Use in Pregnancy.

Authors:  Gretchen Bandoli; Kristin Palmsten; Katrina F Flores; Christina D Chambers
Journal:  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol       Date:  2016-05-10       Impact factor: 3.980

2.  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

Review 3.  Electronic Health Data for Postmarket Surveillance: A Vision Not Realized.

Authors:  Thomas J Moore; Curt D Furberg
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 5.606

4.  Comparative Safety and Effectiveness of Direct-Acting Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin: a National Cohort Study of Nursing Home Residents.

Authors:  Matthew Alcusky; Jennifer Tjia; David D McManus; Anne L Hume; Marc Fisher; Kate L Lapane
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-04-06       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Characterization of Sitagliptin Use in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Chronic Kidney Disease by Cross-Sectional Analysis of a Medical Insurance Claims Database.

Authors:  Kimberly G Brodovicz; Yong Chen; Zhiwen Liu; Mary E Ritchey; Jane Liao; Samuel S Engel
Journal:  Diabetes Ther       Date:  2015-10-05       Impact factor: 2.945

6.  Head to head comparison of the propensity score and the high-dimensional propensity score matching methods.

Authors:  Jason R Guertin; Elham Rahme; Colin R Dormuth; Jacques LeLorier
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2016-02-19       Impact factor: 4.615

7.  Propensity score to detect baseline imbalance in cluster randomized trials: the role of the c-statistic.

Authors:  Clémence Leyrat; Agnès Caille; Yohann Foucher; Bruno Giraudeau
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2016-01-22       Impact factor: 4.615

8.  Performance of the high-dimensional propensity score in adjusting for unmeasured confounders.

Authors:  Jason R Guertin; Elham Rahme; Jacques LeLorier
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2016-08-30       Impact factor: 2.953

9.  Characteristics of Elderly Patients Initiating Sitagliptin or Non-DPP-4-Inhibitor Oral Antihyperglycemic Agents: Analysis of a Cross-Sectional US Claims Database.

Authors:  Tongtong Wang; Ann Marie McNeill; Yong Chen; Edward A O'Neill; Samuel S Engel
Journal:  Diabetes Ther       Date:  2018-01-12       Impact factor: 2.945

10.  Incidence of lower extremity amputations among patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes in the United States from 2010 to 2014.

Authors:  Anouk Déruaz-Luyet; Christina Raabe; Elizabeth M Garry; Kimberly G Brodovicz; Lawrence A Lavery
Journal:  Diabetes Obes Metab       Date:  2020-03-11       Impact factor: 6.577

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.