Hervé Laborde-Castérot1, Nelly Agrinier2, Nathalie Thilly3. 1. Lorraine University, Paris-Descartes University, EA 4360 Apemac, Avenue de la forêt de Haye, 54500 Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France; Université Paris 13, Sorbonne Paris Cité, UFR SMBH, 1 rue de Chablis, 93017, Bobigny, France. 2. Lorraine University, Paris-Descartes University, EA 4360 Apemac, Avenue de la forêt de Haye, 54500 Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France; Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, CIC-EC CIE6 Inserm, University Hospital of Nancy, Allée du Morvan, 54500 Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France. 3. Lorraine University, Paris-Descartes University, EA 4360 Apemac, Avenue de la forêt de Haye, 54500 Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France; Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, CIC-EC CIE6 Inserm, University Hospital of Nancy, Allée du Morvan, 54500 Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France. Electronic address: n.thilly@chu-nancy.fr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Propensity score (PS) and instrumental variable (IV) are analytical techniques used to adjust for confounding in observational research. More and more, they seem to be used simultaneously in studies evaluating health interventions. The present review aimed to analyze the agreement between PS and IV results in medical research published to date. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Review of all published observational studies that evaluated a clinical intervention using simultaneously PS and IV analyses, as identified in MEDLINE and Web of Science. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies, most of them published during the previous 5 years, reported 55 comparisons between results from PS and IV analyses. There was a slight/fair agreement between the methods [Cohen's kappa coefficient = 0.21 (95% confidence interval: 0.00, 0.41)]. In 23 cases (42%), results were nonsignificant for one method and significant for the other, and IV analysis results were nonsignificant in most situations (87%). CONCLUSION: Discrepancies are frequent between PS and IV analyses and can be interpreted in various ways. This suggests that researchers should carefully consider their analytical choices, and readers should be cautious when interpreting results, until further studies clarify the respective roles of the two methods in observational comparative effectiveness research.
OBJECTIVES: Propensity score (PS) and instrumental variable (IV) are analytical techniques used to adjust for confounding in observational research. More and more, they seem to be used simultaneously in studies evaluating health interventions. The present review aimed to analyze the agreement between PS and IV results in medical research published to date. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Review of all published observational studies that evaluated a clinical intervention using simultaneously PS and IV analyses, as identified in MEDLINE and Web of Science. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies, most of them published during the previous 5 years, reported 55 comparisons between results from PS and IV analyses. There was a slight/fair agreement between the methods [Cohen's kappa coefficient = 0.21 (95% confidence interval: 0.00, 0.41)]. In 23 cases (42%), results were nonsignificant for one method and significant for the other, and IV analysis results were nonsignificant in most situations (87%). CONCLUSION: Discrepancies are frequent between PS and IV analyses and can be interpreted in various ways. This suggests that researchers should carefully consider their analytical choices, and readers should be cautious when interpreting results, until further studies clarify the respective roles of the two methods in observational comparative effectiveness research.
Authors: Ailish Nimmo; Nicholas Latimer; Gabriel C Oniscu; Rommel Ravanan; Dominic M Taylor; James Fotheringham Journal: Transpl Int Date: 2022-06-27 Impact factor: 3.842
Authors: Rita de Cássia Teixeira Rangel; Maria de Lourdes de Souza; Cheila Maria Lins Bentes; Anna Carolina Raduenz Huf de Souza; Maria Neto da Cruz Leitão; Fiona Ann Lynn Journal: Rev Lat Am Enfermagem Date: 2019-08-19
Authors: Marzyeh Amini; Nikki van Leeuwen; Frank Eijkenaar; Rob van de Graaf; Noor Samuels; Robert van Oostenbrugge; Ido R van den Wijngaard; Pieter Jan van Doormaal; Yvo B W E M Roos; Charles Majoie; Bob Roozenbeek; Diederik Dippel; James Burke; Hester F Lingsma Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2022-04-10 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Maryse C Cnossen; Thomas A van Essen; Iris E Ceyisakar; Suzanne Polinder; Teuntje M Andriessen; Joukje van der Naalt; Iain Haitsma; Janneke Horn; Gaby Franschman; Pieter E Vos; Wilco C Peul; David K Menon; Andrew Ir Maas; Ewout W Steyerberg; Hester F Lingsma Journal: Clin Epidemiol Date: 2018-07-18 Impact factor: 4.790
Authors: Chee Yoong Foo; Nick Andrianopoulos; Angela Brennan; Andrew Ajani; Christopher M Reid; Stephen J Duffy; David J Clark; Daniel D Reidpath; Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-12-27 Impact factor: 4.379