Comparison of the ability of double‐robust estimators to correct bias in propensity score matching analysis. A Monte Carlo simulation study
- 6 October 2017
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
- Vol. 26 (12), 1513-1519
- https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.4325
Abstract
Objective As covariates are not always adequately balanced after propensity score matching and double‐ adjustment can be used to remove residual confounding, we compared the performance of several double‐robust estimators in different scenarios. Methods We conducted a series of Monte Carlo simulations on virtual observational studies. After estimating the propensity scores by logistic regression, we performed 1:1 optimal, nearest‐neighbor, and caliper matching. We used 4 estimators on each matched sample: (1) a crude estimator without double‐adjustment, (2) double‐adjustment for the propensity scores, (3) double‐adjustment for the unweighted unbalanced covariates, and (4) double‐adjustment for the unbalanced covariates, weighted by their strength of association with the outcome. Results The crude estimator led to highest bias in all tested scenarios. Double‐adjustment for the propensity scores effectively removed confounding only when the propensity score models were correctly specified. Double‐adjustment for the unbalanced covariates was more robust to misspecification. Double‐adjustment for the weighted unbalanced covariates outperformed the other approaches in every scenario and using any matching algorithm, as measured by the mean squared error. Conclusion Double‐adjustment can be used to remove residual confounding after propensity score matching. The unbalanced covariates with the strongest confounding effects should be adjusted.Keywords
This publication has 35 references indexed in Scilit:
- Invited Commentary: Understanding Bias AmplificationAmerican Journal of Epidemiology, 2011
- Optimal caliper widths for propensity‐score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studiesPharmaceutical Statistics, 2011
- Bias-Corrected Matching Estimators for Average Treatment EffectsJournal of Business & Economic Statistics, 2011
- Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity‐score matched samplesStatistics in Medicine, 2009
- Assessing balance in measured baseline covariates when using many‐to‐one matching on the propensity‐scorePharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 2008
- Evaluating uses of data mining techniques in propensity score estimation: a simulation studyPharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 2008
- A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo studyStatistics in Medicine, 2006
- Variable Selection for Propensity Score ModelsAmerican Journal of Epidemiology, 2006
- Designs for Experiments — Parallel Comparisons of TreatmentThe New England Journal of Medicine, 1983
- The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effectsBiometrika, 1983