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

被引:45
作者
Yang, Jeff Y. [1 ]
Webster-Clark, Michael [1 ]
Lund, Jennifer L. [1 ]
Sandler, Robert S. [1 ,2 ]
Dellon, Evan S. [2 ]
Sturmer, Til [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ N Carolina, Gillings Sch Global Publ Hlth, Dept Epidemiol, 2105B McGavran Greenberg Hall,CB 7435, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 USA
[2] Univ N Carolina, Sch Med, Ctr Gastrointestinal Biol & Dis, Chapel Hill, NC 27515 USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
MARGINAL STRUCTURAL MODELS; LOGISTIC-REGRESSION; MULTIPLE-IMPUTATION; VARIABLE SELECTION; RECOMMENDATIONS; ADJUSTMENT; OUTCOMES; NUMBER; STRATIFICATION; PERFORMANCE;
D O I
10.1016/j.gie.2019.04.236
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Background and Aims: Confounding is a major concern in nonexperimental studies of endoscopic interventions and can lead to biased estimates of the effects of treatment. Propensity score methods, which are commonly used in the pharmacoepidemiology literature, can effectively control for baseline confounding by balancing measured baseline confounders and risk factors and creating comparable populations of treated and untreated patients. Methods: We propose the following 5-step checklist to guide the use and evaluation of propensity score methods: (1) select covariates, (2) assess "Table 1" balance in risk factors before propensity score implementation, (3) estimate and implement the propensity score in the study cohort, (4) reassess "Table 1" balance in risk factors after propensity score implementation, and (5) critically evaluate differences between matched and unmatched patients after propensity score implementation. We then applied this checklist to an endoscopy example using a study cohort of 411 adults with newly diagnosed eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), some of whom were treated with esophageal dilation. Results: We identified 156 patients, aged 18 and older, who were treated with esophageal dilation, and 255 patients who were nondilated. We successfully matched 148 (95%) dilated patients to nondilated patients who had a propensity score within 0.1, based on patient age, sex, race, self-reported food allergy, and presence of narrowing at baseline endoscopy. Crude imbalances were observed before propensity score matching in several baseline covariates, including age, sex, and narrowing; however, propensity score matching was successful in achieving balance across all measured covariates. Conclusions: We provide an introduction to propensity score methods, including a straightforward checklist for implementing propensity score methods in nonexperimental studies of treatment effectiveness. Moreover, we demon-strate the advantage of using "Table 1" as a simple but effective diagnostic tool for evaluating the success of propensity score methods in an applied example of esophageal dilation in EoE. (Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 90: 360-9.)
引用
收藏
页码:360 / 369
页数:10
相关论文
共 68 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2007, NBER Technical Working Papers 0343
[2]  
[Anonymous], STAT MED
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2004, Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2008, Modern epidemiology
[5]   The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios [J].
Austin, Peter C. .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2007, 26 (16) :3078-3094
[6]   A Tutorial and Case Study in Propensity Score Analysis: An Application to Estimating the Effect of In-Hospital Smoking Cessation Counseling on Mortality [J].
Austin, Peter C. .
MULTIVARIATE BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH, 2011, 46 (01) :119-151
[7]   Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies [J].
Austin, Peter C. .
PHARMACEUTICAL STATISTICS, 2011, 10 (02) :150-161
[8]   Some Methods of Propensity-Score Matching had Superior Performance to Others: Results of an Empirical Investigation and Monte Carlo simulations [J].
Austin, Peter C. .
BIOMETRICAL JOURNAL, 2009, 51 (01) :171-184
[9]   Marginal structural models for analyzing causal effects of time-dependent treatments: An application in perinatal epidemiology [J].
Bodnar, LM ;
Davidian, M ;
Siega-Riz, AM ;
Tsiatis, AA .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2004, 159 (10) :926-934
[10]   Rare outcomes, common treatments: Analytic strategies using propensity scores [J].
Braitman, LE ;
Rosenbaum, PR .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2002, 137 (08) :693-695