Observational studies using propensity score analysis underestimated the effect sizes in critical care medicine

Background and Objective: Propensity score (PS) analysis has been increasingly used in critical care medicine; however, its validation has not been systematically investigated. The present study aimed to compare effect sizes in PS-based observational studies vs. randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (or meta-analysis of RCTs). Methods: Critical care observational studies using PS were systematically searched in PubMed from inception to April 2013. Identified PS-based studies were matched to one or more RCTs in terms of population, intervention, comparison, and outcome. The effect sizes of experimental treatments were compared for PS-based studies vs. RCTs (or meta-analysis of RCTs) with sign test. Furthermore, ratio of odds ratio (ROR) was calculated from the interaction term of treatment x study type in a logistic regression model. A ROR < 1 indicates greater benefit for experimental treatment in RCTs compared with PS-based studies. RORs of each comparison were pooled by using meta-analytic approach with random-effects model. Results: A total of 20 PS-based studies were identified and matched to RCTs. Twelve of the 20 comparisons showed greater beneficial effect for experimental treatment in RCTs than that in PS-based studies (sign test P = 0.503). The difference was statistically significant in four comparisons. ROR can be calculated from 13 comparisons, of which four showed significantly greater beneficial effect for experimental treatment in RCTs. The pooled ROR was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.63, 0.79; P = 0.002), suggesting that RCTs (or meta-analysis of RCTs) were more likely to report beneficial effect for the experimental treatment than PS-based studies. The result remained unchanged in sensitivity analysis and meta-regression. Conclusion: In critical care literature, PS-based observational study is likely to report less beneficial effect of experimental treatment compared with RCTs (or meta-analysis of RCTs). (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.