Literature DB >> 4005368

The bias due to incomplete matching.

P R Rosenbaum, D B Rubin.   

Abstract

Observational studies comparing groups of treated and control units are often used to estimate the effects caused by treatments. Matching is a method for sampling a large reservoir of potential controls to produce a control group of modest size that is ostensibly similar to the treated group. In practice, there is a trade-off between the desires to find matches for all treated units and to obtain matched treated-control pairs that are extremely similar to each other. We derive expressions for the bias in the average matched pair difference due to the failure to match all treated units--incomplete matching, and the failure to obtain exact matches--inexact matching. A practical example shows that the bias due to incomplete matching can be severe, and moreover, can be avoided entirely by using an appropriate multivariate nearest available matching algorithm, which, in the example, leaves only a small residual bias due to inexact matching.

Mesh:

Year:  1985        PMID: 4005368

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biometrics        ISSN: 0006-341X            Impact factor:   2.571


  87 in total

1.  Does community-based health insurance protect household assets? Evidence from rural Africa.

Authors:  Divya Parmar; Steffen Reinhold; Aurélia Souares; Germain Savadogo; Rainer Sauerborn
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2011-09-23       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Type I error rates, coverage of confidence intervals, and variance estimation in propensity-score matched analyses.

Authors:  Peter C Austin
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2009-04-14       Impact factor: 0.968

3.  Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Stuart
Journal:  Stat Sci       Date:  2010-02-01       Impact factor: 2.901

Review 4.  A review of the application of propensity score methods yielded increasing use, advantages in specific settings, but not substantially different estimates compared with conventional multivariable methods.

Authors:  Til Stürmer; Manisha Joshi; Robert J Glynn; Jerry Avorn; Kenneth J Rothman; Sebastian Schneeweiss
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2005-10-13       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Insights into different results from different causal contrasts in the presence of effect-measure modification.

Authors:  Til Stürmer; Kenneth J Rothman; Robert J Glynn
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 2.890

6.  Using full matching to estimate causal effects in nonexperimental studies: examining the relationship between adolescent marijuana use and adult outcomes.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Stuart; Kerry M Green
Journal:  Dev Psychol       Date:  2008-03

7.  Propensity scores: method for matching on multiple variables in down syndrome research.

Authors:  Jennifer Urbano Blackford
Journal:  Intellect Dev Disabil       Date:  2009-10

8.  [Adjuvant autologous tumour cell vaccination in patients with renal cell carcinoma. Overall survival analysis with a follow-up period in excess of more than 10 years].

Authors:  M May; F Kendel; B Hoschke; C Gilfrich; S Kiessig; S Pflanz; M Seidel; S Brookman-Amissah
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 0.639

9.  Veridical Causal Inference using Propensity Score Methods for Comparative Effectiveness Research with Medical Claims.

Authors:  Ryan D Ross; Xu Shi; Megan E V Caram; Pheobe A Tsao; Paul Lin; Amy Bohnert; Min Zhang; Bhramar Mukherjee
Journal:  Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol       Date:  2020-10-20

10.  Toward a better understanding of when to apply propensity scoring: a comparison with conventional regression in ethnic disparities research.

Authors:  Yu Ye; Jason C Bond; Laura A Schmidt; Nina Mulia; Tammy W Tam
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2012-08-14       Impact factor: 3.797

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.