Merits and caveats of propensity scores to adjust for confounding

被引：56

作者：

Fu, Edouard L. ^{[1
]}

Groenwold, Rolf H. H. ^{[1
]}

Zoccali, Carmine ^{[2
]}

Jager, Kitty J. ^{[3
]}

van Diepen, Merel ^{[1
]}

Dekker, Friedo W. ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Leiden Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Clin Epidemiol, Leiden, Netherlands

[2] CNR, IFC, Ctr Clin Physiol Clin Epidemiol Renal Dis & Hyper, Reggio Di Calabria, Italy

[3] Univ Amsterdam, Amsterdam Publ Hlth Res Inst, Amsterdam UMC, Dept Med Informat,ERA EDTA Registry, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, Netherlands

来源：

NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION | 2019年 / 34卷 / 10期

关键词：

cohort studies; confounding; dialysis; observational research; propensity score; SELECTION; BIAS; SUBCLASSIFICATION; KNOWLEDGE; DIALYSIS;

D O I：

10.1093/ndt/gfy283

中图分类号：

R3 [基础医学]; R4 [临床医学];

学科分类号：

1001 ; 1002 ; 100602 ;

摘要：

Proper adjustment for confounding is essential when estimating the effects of treatments or risk factors on health outcomes in observational data. To this end, various statistical methods have been developed. In the past couple of years, the use of propensity scores (PSs) to control for confounding has increased. Proper understanding of this method is necessary to critically appraise research in which it is applied. In this article, we provide an overview of PS methods, explaining their concept, advantages and possible disadvantages. Furthermore, the use of PS matching, PS adjustment and PS weighting is illustrated using data from the Netherlands Cooperative Study on the Adequacy of Dialysis (NECOSAD) cohort of dialysis patients.

引用

页码：1629 / 1635

页数：7

共 39 条

[1] Best (but oft-forgotten) practices: propensity score methods in clinical nutrition research [J].

Ali, M. Sanni ;

Groenwold, Rolf H. H. ;

Klungel, Olaf H. .

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION, 2016, 104 (02) :247-258

[2] Reporting of covariate selection and balance assessment in propensity score analysis is suboptimal: a systematic review [J].

Ali, M. Sanni ;

Groenwold, Rolf H. H. ;

Belitser, Svetlana V. ;

Pestman, Wiebe R. ;

Hoes, Arno W. ;

Roes, Kit C. B. ;

de Boer, Anthonius ;

Klungel, Olaf H. .

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2015, 68 (02) :122-131

[3] A comparison of 12 algorithms for matching on the propensity score [J].

Austin, Peter C. .

STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2014, 33 (06) :1057-1069

[4] 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

[5] 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

[6] Rare outcomes, common treatments: Analytic strategies using propensity scores [J].

Braitman, LE ;

Rosenbaum, PR .

ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2002, 137 (08) :693-695

[7] Variable selection for propensity score models [J].

Brookhart, M. Alan ;

Schneeweiss, Sebastian ;

Rothman, Kenneth J. ;

Glynn, Robert J. ;

Avorn, Jerry ;

Sturmer, Til .

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2006, 163 (12) :1149-1156

[8] Propensity Score Methods for Confounding Control in Nonexperimental Research [J].

Brookhart, M. Alan ;

Wyss, Richard ;

Layton, J. Bradley ;

Stuerner, Til .

CIRCULATION-CARDIOVASCULAR QUALITY AND OUTCOMES, 2013, 6 (05) :604-611

[9] Too many covariates and too few cases? - a comparative study [J].

Chen, Qingxia ;

Nian, Hui ;

Zhu, Yuwei ;

Talbot, H. Keipp ;

Griffin, Marie R. ;

Harrell, Frank E., Jr. .

STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2016, 35 (25) :4546-4558

[10] EFFECTIVENESS OF ADJUSTMENT BY SUBCLASSIFICATION IN REMOVING BIAS IN OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES [J].

COCHRAN, WG .

BIOMETRICS, 1968, 24 (02) :295-&

← 1 2 3 4 →