Balancing propertiesa need for the application of propensity score methods in estimation of treatment effects

  1. Urkaregi Etxepare, Arantza
  2. Martínez Indart, Lorea
  3. Pijoan del Barrio, José Ignacio
Revista:
Sort: Statistics and Operations Research Transactions

ISSN: 1696-2281

Año de publicación: 2014

Volumen: 38

Número: 2

Páginas: 271-284

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Sort: Statistics and Operations Research Transactions

Resumen

There has been recently a striking increase in the use of propensity score methods in health sciences research as a tool to adjust for selection bias in making causal inferences from observational controlled studies. However, reviews of published studies that use these techniques suggest that investigators often do not pay proper attention to thorough verification of appropriate fulfilment of propensity score adjusting properties. By using a case study in which balance is not achieved, we illustrate the need to systematically asses the accomplishment of the balancing property of the propensity score as a critical requirement for obtaining unbiased treatment effects estimates.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Adelson, J. L. (2013). Educational Research with Real-World Data: Reducing Selection Bias with Propensity Scores. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 18(15). Available online: http://pareon line.net/getvn.asp?v=18&n=15
  • Austin, P. C. (2008a). Goodness-of-fit diagnostics for the propensity score model when estimating treatment effects using covariate adjustment with the propensity score. Pharmacoepidemiology Drug Safety, 17, 1202–1217.
  • Austin, P. C. (2008b). A critical appraisal of propensity-score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003. Statistics in Medicine, 27, 2037-2049.
  • Austin, P. C. (2009). Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Statistics in Medicine, 28, 3083–3107.
  • Austin, P. C. (2011). An Introduction to Propensity ScoreMethods for Reducing the Effects of Confounding in Observational Studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46, 399–424.
  • Austin, P. C., Mamdani, M. M., Stukel T. A., Anderson G. M. and Tu J. V. (2005). The use of the propensity score for estimating treatment effects: administrative versus clinical data. Statistics in Medicine, 24, 1563–1578.
  • Austin, P. C., Grootendorst, P. and Anderson, G. M. (2007). A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study. Statistics in Medicine, 26, 734–753.
  • Becker, S. O. and Ichino, A. (2002). Estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity scores. Stata Journal, 2, 358–377.
  • Belitser, S. V., Martens, E. P., Pestman, W. R., Groenwold R. H. H., de Boer, A. and Klungel, O. H. (2011). Measuring balance and model selection in propensity score methods. Pharmacoepidemiology Drug Safety, 20, 1115–1129.
  • Benjamini, Y. and Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Serie B, 57, 289–300.
  • Brookhart, M. A., Schneeweis, S., Rothmann, K. J., Glynn, R. J., Avorn, J. and Sturmer, T. (2006). Variable selection for propensity score models. American Journal of Epidemiology, 163, 1149–1156.
  • Bryson, A., Dorsett, R. and Purdon, S. (2002). The use of propensity score matching in the evaluation of active labour market policies. Policy Studies Institute and National Centre for Social Research. Working paper number 4. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/4993/1/The use of propensity score matching in the eva luation of active labour market policies.pdf Last accessed 13 September 2013.
  • Caliendo, M. and Kopeining, S. (2008). Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. Journal of Economic Surveys, 1, 31–72.
  • Cole, S. R. and Hernán, M. A. (2008). Constructing inverse probability weights for marginal structural models. American Journal of Epidemiology, 168, 65-.664.
  • Couper, M. P. and Miller P. V. (2008). Web survey methods-Introduction. Public Opinion Quarterly, 5, 831–835.
  • D’Agostino, J. R. Jr. and D’Agostino, R. B. Sr. (2007). Estimating treatment effects using observational data. The Journal of American Medical Association, 297, 314–316.
  • Dehejia, R. H. and Wahba, S. (2002). Propensity Score-Matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. The review of Economics and Statistics, 84(1), 151–161.
  • Friedman, L. M., Furberg, C. D. and DeMets, D. L. (1998). Fundamentals of Clinical Trials. 3rd ed. Springer, New York.
  • Gang, F., Brooks, J. M. and Chrischilles, E. A. (2012). Apples and oranges? Interpretations of risk adjustment and instrumental variable estimates of intended treatment effects using observational data. American Journal of Epidemiology, 175, 60–65.
  • Glynn, R. J., Schneeweiss, S. and Stürmer, T. (2006). Indications for propensity scores and review of their use in pharmacoepidemiology. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology, 98(3), 253–259.
  • Grimes, D. A. and Schulz, K. F. (2002). Bias and causal association in observational research. Lancet, 359, 248–252.
  • Imai, K. and Ratkovic, M. (2014). Covariate balancing propensity score. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 76, 243–263.
  • Klungel, O. H., Martens, E. P., Psaty, B. M., Grobbee, D. E., Sullivan, S. D., Stricker, B. H. Ch. et al. (2004). Methods to assess intended effects of drug treatment in observational studies are reviewed. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 57, 1223–1231.
  • Midi, H., Rana, S. and Sarkar, S. K. (2010). Binary response modelling and validation of its predictive ability. WSEAS Transactions on Mathematics, 9, 438–447.
  • Oakes, J. M., Johnson, P. J.(2006). Propensity score matching for social epidemiology. In: Oakes, J. M., Kaufman, J. S. editors. Methods in Social Epidemiology. John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco.
  • Pattanayak, C.W., Rubin, D. B. and Zell, R. (2011). Propensity score methods for creating covariate balance in observational studies. Revista Española de Cardiologı́a, 64(10), 897–903.
  • Rosenbaum, P. R. and Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41–55.
  • Rosenbaum, P. R. and Rubin, D. R. (1984). Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79, 516–524.
  • Shadish, W. R. and Steiner, P. M. (2010). A primer on propensity score analysis. Newborn and Infant Nursing Reviews, 10, 19–26.
  • Shah, D. R., Laupacis, A., Hux, J. E. and Austin, P. C. (2005). A comparison of propensity score methods: a case-study estimating the effectiveness of post-AMI statin use. Statistics in Medicine, 25, 2084– 2106.
  • Stuart, E.A. http://www.biostat.jhsph.edu/ estuart/propensityscoresoftware.html Last accessed 10 September 2013.
  • Sturmer, T., Joshi, M., Glynn, R .J., Avorn J., Rothman, K. J. and Schneeweiss, S. (2006). 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. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59, 437–447.
  • Walker, A. M. (1996). Confounding by indication. Epidemiology, 7, 335–336.
  • Weitzen, S., Lapane, K. L., Toledano, A. Y., Hume, A. L. and Mor, V. (2004). Principles for modelling propensity scores in medical research: a systematic literature review. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 13, 841–853.
  • Westreich, D. and Cole, S. R. (2010). Invited commentary: positivity in practice. American Journal of Epidemiology, 171, 678–681.
  • Westreich, D., Cole, S. R., Funk, M. J., Brookhart, M. A. and Sturmer, T. (2011). The role of the c-statistic in variable selection for propensity score models. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 20, 317– 320.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet