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
- A Weighting Analogue to Pair Matching in Propensity Score Analysis by Li, Liang and Greene, Tom
- Exact Nonparametric Confidence Bands for the Survivor Function by Matthews, David
- Accuracy of Conventional and Marginal Structural Cox Model Estimators: A Simulation Study by Xiao, Yongling/ Abrahamowicz, Michal and Moodie, Erica E. M.
- Principal Stratification: A Broader Vision by Shrier, Ian/ Kaufman, Jay S./ Platt, Robert W. and Steele, Russell J.
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.