The Relative Ability of Different Propensity Score Methods to Balance Measured Covariates Between Treated and Untreated Subjects in Observational Studies
Top Cited Papers
- 14 August 2009
- journal article
- research article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Medical Decision Making
- Vol. 29 (6), 661-677
- https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x09341755
Abstract
The propensity score is a balancing score: conditional on the propensity score, treated and untreated subjects have the same distribution of observed baseline characteristics. Four methods of using the propensity score have been described in the literature: stratification on the propensity score, propensity score matching, inverse probability of treatment weighting using the propensity score, and covariate adjustment using the propensity score. However, the relative ability of these methods to reduce systematic differences between treated and untreated subjects has not been examined. The authors used an empirical case study and Monte Carlo simulations to examine the relative ability of the 4 methods to balance baseline covariates between treated and untreated subjects. They used standardized differences in the propensity score matched sample and in the weighted sample. For stratification on the propensity score, within-quintile standardized differences were computed comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treated and untreated subjects within the same quintile of the propensity score. These quintile-specific standardized differences were then averaged across the quintiles. For covariate adjustment, the authors used the weighted conditional standardized absolute difference to compare balance between treated and untreated subjects. In both the empirical case study and in the Monte Carlo simulations, they found that matching on the propensity score and weighting using the inverse probability of treatment eliminated a greater degree of the systematic differences between treated and untreated subjects compared with the other 2 methods. In the Monte Carlo simulations, propensity score matching tended to have either comparable or marginally superior performance compared with propensity-score weighting.Keywords
This publication has 23 references indexed in Scilit:
- Some Methods of Propensity‐Score Matching had Superior Performance to Others: Results of an Empirical Investigation and Monte Carlo simulationsBiometrical Journal, 2009
- Propensity-score matching in the cardiovascular surgery literature from 2004 to 2006: A systematic review and suggestions for improvementThe Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 2007
- A critical appraisal of propensity‐score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003Statistics in Medicine, 2007
- 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 methodsJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2006
- Propensity score methods gave similar results to traditional regression modeling in observational studies: a systematic reviewJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2005
- Model Selection, Confounder Control, and Marginal Structural ModelsThe American Statistician, 2004
- Principles for modeling propensity scores in medical research: a systematic literature reviewPharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 2004
- Model-Based Direct AdjustmentJournal of the American Statistical Association, 1987
- Reducing Bias in Observational Studies Using Subclassification on the Propensity ScoreJournal of the American Statistical Association, 1984
- The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effectsBiometrika, 1983