Timothy L McMurry1, Yinin Hu2, Eugene H Blackstone3, Benjamin D Kozower4. 1. Department of Public Heath Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va. 2. Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Va. 3. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery and Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 4. Department of Public Heath Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va; Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Va. Electronic address: bdk8g@virginia.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the published literature using propensity scoring, describe shortcomings in the use of this technique, and provide conceptual background for understanding and correctly implementing studies that use propensity matching. METHODS: We survey the published statistical literature and make recommendations for a set of standard criteria for studies that use propensity matching. We evaluated adherence to these criteria in recent publications in the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery and determined how well the standards were applied. RESULTS: We found that studies that use propensity matching are rarely documented well enough to be convincing in their results. When documentation is available, statistical shortcomings are common. CONCLUSIONS: Improved statistical practice is needed when using propensity scoring. This article suggests standard criteria for using this method in Journal publications.
OBJECTIVE: To review the published literature using propensity scoring, describe shortcomings in the use of this technique, and provide conceptual background for understanding and correctly implementing studies that use propensity matching. METHODS: We survey the published statistical literature and make recommendations for a set of standard criteria for studies that use propensity matching. We evaluated adherence to these criteria in recent publications in the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery and determined how well the standards were applied. RESULTS: We found that studies that use propensity matching are rarely documented well enough to be convincing in their results. When documentation is available, statistical shortcomings are common. CONCLUSIONS: Improved statistical practice is needed when using propensity scoring. This article suggests standard criteria for using this method in Journal publications.
Authors: Vernissia Tam; James D Luketich; Daniel G Winger; Inderpal S Sarkaria; Ryan M Levy; Neil A Christie; Omar Awais; Manisha R Shende; Katie S Nason Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2016-06-25 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Taryn E Hassinger; J Hunter Mehaffey; Robert B Hawkins; Bruce D Schirmer; Peter T Hallowell; Anneke T Schroen; Shayna L Showalter Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Jiayi Huang; Pamela Samson; Stephanie M Perkins; George Ansstas; Milan G Chheda; Todd A DeWees; Christina I Tsien; Clifford G Robinson; Jian L Campian Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2016-11-14 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Bo Yang; Elizabeth L Norton; Carlo Maria Rosati; Xiaoting Wu; Karen M Kim; Minhaj S Khaja; G Michael Deeb; David M Williams; Himanshu J Patel Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2018-12-14 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Ming Liu; Dennis Wigle; Jason A Wampfler; Jie Dai; Shawn M Stoddard; Zhiqiang Xue; Francis C Nichols; Gening Jiang; Ping Yang Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2017-08-17 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: J Hunter Mehaffey; Robert B Hawkins; Anna Fashandi; Kenneth J Cherry; John A Kern; Irving L Kron; Gilbert R Upchurch; William P Robinson Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2017-06-24 Impact factor: 4.268