Guillaume Lonjon1, Raphael Porcher, Patrick Ergina, Mathilde Fouet, Isabelle Boutron. 1. *INSERM, UMR 1153, Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics Sorbonne Paris Cité (CRESS), METHODS Team, Paris, France †Orthopaedic Department, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, European Hospital Georges Pompidou, Paris, France ‡Medical school, Paris Descartes university, Sorbonne Paris cité, Paris, France §Centre of research in epidemiology and statistics Sorbonne Paris Cité , Hopital Hotel dieu, place du Parvis notre dame, Paris, France ¶Department of Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the evolution of the use and reporting of propensity score (PS) analysis in observational studies assessing a surgical procedure. BACKGROUND: Assessing surgery in randomized controlled trials raises several challenges. Observational studies with PS analysis are a robust alternative for comparative effectiveness research. METHODS: In this methodological systematic review, we identified all PubMed reports of observational studies with PS analysis that evaluated a surgical procedure and described the evolution of their use over time. Then, we selected a sample of articles published from August 2013 to July 2014 and systematically appraised the quality of reporting and potential bias of the PS analysis used. RESULTS: We selected 652 reports of observational studies with PS analysis. The publications increased over time, from 1 report in 1987 to 198 in 2013. Among the 129 reports assessed, 20% (n = 24) did not detail the covariates included in the PS and 77% (n = 100) did not report a justification for including these covariates in the PS. The rate of missing data for potential covariates was reported in 9% of articles. When a crossover by conversion was possible, only 14% of reports (n = 12) mentioned this issue. For matched analysis, 10% of articles reported all 4 key elements that allow for reproducibility of a PS-matched analysis (matching ratio, method to choose the nearest neighbors, replacement and method for statistical analysis). CONCLUSIONS: Observational studies with PS analysis in surgery are increasing in frequency, but specific methodological issues and weaknesses in reporting exist.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the evolution of the use and reporting of propensity score (PS) analysis in observational studies assessing a surgical procedure. BACKGROUND: Assessing surgery in randomized controlled trials raises several challenges. Observational studies with PS analysis are a robust alternative for comparative effectiveness research. METHODS: In this methodological systematic review, we identified all PubMed reports of observational studies with PS analysis that evaluated a surgical procedure and described the evolution of their use over time. Then, we selected a sample of articles published from August 2013 to July 2014 and systematically appraised the quality of reporting and potential bias of the PS analysis used. RESULTS: We selected 652 reports of observational studies with PS analysis. The publications increased over time, from 1 report in 1987 to 198 in 2013. Among the 129 reports assessed, 20% (n = 24) did not detail the covariates included in the PS and 77% (n = 100) did not report a justification for including these covariates in the PS. The rate of missing data for potential covariates was reported in 9% of articles. When a crossover by conversion was possible, only 14% of reports (n = 12) mentioned this issue. For matched analysis, 10% of articles reported all 4 key elements that allow for reproducibility of a PS-matched analysis (matching ratio, method to choose the nearest neighbors, replacement and method for statistical analysis). CONCLUSIONS: Observational studies with PS analysis in surgery are increasing in frequency, but specific methodological issues and weaknesses in reporting exist.
Authors: Elisa M Müller; Eva Herrmann; Thomas Schmandra; Thomas F Weigel; Ernst Hanisch; Alexander Buia Journal: World J Surg Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Ulrich Wirth; Marie Luise Saller; Thomas von Ahnen; Ferdinand Köckerling; Hans Martin Schardey; Stefan Schopf Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-07-12 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: A Balduzzi; J van Hilst; M Korrel; S Lof; B Al-Sarireh; A Alseidi; F Berrevoet; B Björnsson; P van den Boezem; U Boggi; O R Busch; G Butturini; R Casadei; R van Dam; S Dokmak; B Edwin; M A Sahakyan; G Ercolani; J M Fabre; M Falconi; A Forgione; B Gayet; D Gomez; B Groot Koerkamp; T Hackert; T Keck; I Khatkov; C Krautz; R Marudanayagam; K Menon; A Pietrabissa; I Poves; A Sa Cunha; R Salvia; S Sánchez-Cabús; Z Soonawalla; M Abu Hilal; M G Besselink Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 4.584