Literature DB >> 8934595

Matching using estimated propensity scores: relating theory to practice.

D B Rubin1, N Thomas.   

Abstract

Matched sampling is a standard technique in the evaluation of treatments in observational studies. Matching on estimated propensity scores comprises an important class of procedures when there are numerous matching variables. Recent theoretical work (Rubin, D. B. and Thomas, N., 1992, The Annals of Statistics 20, 1079-1093) on affinely invariant matching methods with ellipsoidal distributions provides a general framework for evaluating the operating characteristics of such methods. Moreover, Rubin and Thomas (1992, Biometrika 79, 797-809) uses this framework to derive several analytic approximations under normality for the distribution of the first two moments of the matching variables in samples obtained by matching on estimated linear propensity scores. Here we provide a bridge between these theoretical approximations and actual practice. First, we complete and refine the nomal-based analytic approximations, thereby making it possible to apply these results to practice. Second, we perform Monte Carlo evaluations of the analytic results under normal and nonnormal ellipsoidal distributions, which confirm the accuracy of the analytic approximations, and demonstrate the predictable ways in which the approximations deviate from simulation results when normal assumptions are violated within the ellipsoidal family. Third, we apply the analytic approximations to real data with clearly nonellipsoidal distributions, and show that the theoretical expressions, although derived under artificial distributional conditions, produce useful guidance for practice. Our results delineate the wide range of settings in which matching on estimated linear propensity scores performs well, thereby providing useful information for the design of matching studies. When matching with a particular data set, our theoretical approximations provide benchmarks for expected performance under favorable conditions, thereby identifying matching variables requiring special treatment. After matching is complete and data analysis is at hand, our results provide the variances required to compute valid standard errors for common estimators.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8934595

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


  212 in total

1.  Improved survival in Medicare patients with multiple myeloma: findings from a large nationwide and population-based cohort.

Authors:  Ying Chen; David R Lairson; Wenyaw Chan; Xianglin L Du
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2017-08-03       Impact factor: 3.064

2.  Effects of adjusting for instrumental variables on bias and precision of effect estimates.

Authors:  Jessica A Myers; Jeremy A Rassen; Joshua J Gagne; Krista F Huybrechts; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Kenneth J Rothman; Marshall M Joffe; Robert J Glynn
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2011-10-24       Impact factor: 4.897

3.  Maternal use of hydroxychloroquine is associated with a reduced risk of recurrent anti-SSA/Ro-antibody-associated cardiac manifestations of neonatal lupus.

Authors:  Peter M Izmirly; Nathalie Costedoat-Chalumeau; Cecilia N Pisoni; Munther A Khamashta; Mimi Y Kim; Amit Saxena; Deborah Friedman; Carolina Llanos; Jean-Charles Piette; Jill P Buyon
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2012-05-24       Impact factor: 29.690

4.  Parents' Union Dissolution and Adolescents' School Performance: Comparing Methodological Approaches.

Authors:  Michelle L Frisco; Chandra Muller; Kenneth Frank
Journal:  J Marriage Fam       Date:  2007-08-01

5.  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 6.  Propensity score methods to control for confounding in observational cohort studies: a statistical primer and application to endoscopy research.

Authors:  Jeff Y Yang; Michael Webster-Clark; Jennifer L Lund; Robert S Sandler; Evan S Dellon; Til Stürmer
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2019-04-30       Impact factor: 9.427

7.  Effectiveness of Ultrasound-Guided Compared to Blind Steroid Injections in the Treatment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.

Authors:  Stefanie Evers; Andrew J Bryan; Thomas L Sanders; Ruud W Selles; Russell Gelfman; Peter C Amadio
Journal:  Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)       Date:  2017-06-08       Impact factor: 4.794

8.  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

9.  Diversifying Science: Intervention Programs Moderate the Effect of Stereotype Threat on Motivation and Career Choice.

Authors:  Anna Woodcock; Paul R Hernandez; P Wesley Schultz
Journal:  Soc Psychol Personal Sci       Date:  2015-09-28

10.  Distinct enough? A national examination of Catholic hospital affiliation and patient perceptions of care.

Authors:  Ann Kutney-Lee; G J Melendez-Torres; Matthew D McHugh; Barbra Mann Wall
Journal:  Health Care Manage Rev       Date:  2014 Apr-Jun
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.