The International Journal of Biostatistics
Ed. by Chambaz, Antoine / Hubbard, Alan E. / van der Laan, Mark J.
2 Issues per year
IMPACT FACTOR 2013: 0.948
SCImago Journal Rank (SJR): 1.039
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP): 0.746
Mathematical Citation Quotient 2013: 0.04
Volume 7 (2011)
Volume 5 (2009)
Volume 4 (2008)
Volume 3 (2007)
Volume 2 (2006)
Volume 1 (2005)
Most Downloaded Articles
- An Introduction to Causal Inference by Pearl, Judea
- Sample Size Estimation for Repeated Measures Analysis in Randomized Clinical Trials with Missing Data by Lu, Kaifeng/ Luo, Xiaohui and Chen, Pei-Yun
- Survival Models in Health Economic Evaluations: Balancing Fit and Parsimony to Improve Prediction by Jackson, Christopher H/ Sharples, Linda D and Thompson, Simon G
- Accuracy of Conventional and Marginal Structural Cox Model Estimators: A Simulation Study by Xiao, Yongling/ Abrahamowicz, Michal and Moodie, Erica E. M.
- Model Checking with Residuals for g-estimation of Optimal Dynamic Treatment Regimes by Rich, Benjamin/ Moodie, Erica E. M./ Stephens, David A and Platt, Robert W
Type I Error Rates, Coverage of Confidence Intervals, and Variance Estimation in Propensity-Score Matched Analyses
1Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
Citation Information: The International Journal of Biostatistics. Volume 5, Issue 1, ISSN (Online) 1557-4679, DOI: 10.2202/1557-4679.1146, April 2009
- Published Online:
Propensity-score matching is frequently used in the medical literature to reduce or eliminate the effect of treatment selection bias when estimating the effect of treatments or exposures on outcomes using observational data. In propensity-score matching, pairs of treated and untreated subjects with similar propensity scores are formed. Recent systematic reviews of the use of propensity-score matching found that the large majority of researchers ignore the matched nature of the propensity-score matched sample when estimating the statistical significance of the treatment effect. We conducted a series of Monte Carlo simulations to examine the impact of ignoring the matched nature of the propensity-score matched sample on Type I error rates, coverage of confidence intervals, and variance estimation of the treatment effect. We examined estimating differences in means, relative risks, odds ratios, rate ratios from Poisson models, and hazard ratios from Cox regression models. We demonstrated that accounting for the matched nature of the propensity-score matched sample tended to result in type I error rates that were closer to the advertised level compared to when matching was not incorporated into the analyses. Similarly, accounting for the matched nature of the sample tended to result in confidence intervals with coverage rates that were closer to the nominal level, compared to when matching was not taken into account. Finally, accounting for the matched nature of the sample resulted in estimates of standard error that more closely reflected the sampling variability of the treatment effect compared to when matching was not taken into account.