Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

The International Journal of Biostatistics

Ed. by Chambaz, Antoine / Hubbard, Alan E. / van der Laan, Mark J.

2 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.500
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.862

CiteScore 2016: 0.42

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.488
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.467

Mathematical Citation Quotient (MCQ) 2016: 0.09

Online
ISSN
1557-4679
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Type I Error Rates, Coverage of Confidence Intervals, and Variance Estimation in Propensity-Score Matched Analyses

Peter C Austin
Published Online: 2009-04-14 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.2202/1557-4679.1146

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.

Keywords: propensity score; matching; propensity-score matching; variance estimation; coverage; simulations; type I error; observational studies

About the article

Published Online: 2009-04-14


Citation Information: The International Journal of Biostatistics, ISSN (Online) 1557-4679, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2202/1557-4679.1146.

Export Citation

©2011 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston. Copyright Clearance Center

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Nerys Woolacott, Mark Corbett, Julie Jones-Diette, and Robert Hodgson
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2017
[2]
Noemi Kreif, Richard Grieve, Rosalba Radice, Zia Sadique, Roland Ramsahai, and Jasjeet S. Sekhon
Medical Decision Making, 2012, Volume 32, Number 6, Page 750
[3]
Madhur Nayan, Robert J. Hamilton, David N. Juurlink, Antonio Finelli, Girish S. Kulkarni, and Peter C. Austin
BJU International, 2017
[5]
Hmwe Hmwe Kyu, Harry S Shannon, Katholiki Georgiades, and Michael H Boyle
International Journal of Epidemiology, 2013, Volume 42, Number 3, Page 781
[6]
Sanjay Basu, Ankita Meghani, and Arjumand Siddiqi
Annual Review of Public Health, 2017, Volume 38, Number 1, Page 351
[7]
Robert Hettle, Mark Corbett, Sebastian Hinde, Robert Hodgson, Julie Jones-Diette, Nerys Woolacott, and Stephen Palmer
Health Technology Assessment, 2017, Volume 21, Number 7, Page 1
[8]
Peter C Austin, Nathaniel Jembere, and Maria Chiu
Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 2016, Page 096228021665892
[9]
R Gutman and DB Rubin
Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 2017, Volume 26, Number 3, Page 1199
[10]
Peter C Austin and Elizabeth A Stuart
Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 2015, Page 096228021560113
[11]
Robin Mitra and Jerome P Reiter
Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 2016, Volume 25, Number 1, Page 188
[12]
Verônica Torres Costa e Silva, Fernando Liaño, Alfonso Muriel, Rafael Díez, Isac de Castro, Luis Yu, and Emmanuel A. Burdmann
PLoS ONE, 2013, Volume 8, Number 8, Page e70482
[13]
Zachary T. Bloomgarden, Kaan Tunceli, Jinan Liu, Kimberly G. Brodovicz, Panagiotis Mavros, Samuel S. Engel, Larry Radican, Yong Chen, Swapnil Rajpathak, Ying Qiu, Philippe Brudi, and Vivian Fonseca
Journal of Diabetes, 2017, Volume 9, Number 7, Page 677
[14]
Peter C. Austin
Statistics in Medicine, 2016, Volume 35, Number 30, Page 5642
[15]
Matthieu Resche-Rigon, Romain Pirracchio, Marie Robin, Regis Peffault De Latour, David Sibon, Lionel Ades, Patricia Ribaud, Jean-Paul Fermand, Catherine Thieblemont, Gérard Socié, and Sylvie Chevret
BMC Blood Disorders, 2012, Volume 12, Number 1
[16]
Rüdiger Mutz, Tobias Wolbring, and Hans-Dieter Daniel
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2017, Volume 68, Number 9, Page 2139
[17]
Onkar V. Khullar, Yuan Liu, Theresa Gillespie, Kristin A. Higgins, Suresh Ramalingam, Joseph Lipscomb, and Felix G Fernandez
Journal of Thoracic Oncology, 2015, Volume 10, Number 11, Page 1625
[18]
Rita S. Suri, Lihua Li, and Gihad E. Nesrallah
Kidney International, 2015, Volume 88, Number 2, Page 360
[19]
Ekele Alih and Hong Choon Ong
Statistical Methodology, 2015, Volume 27, Page 51
[20]
Rajender R. Aparasu, Satabdi Chatterjee, Sandhya Mehta, and Hua Chen
Medical Care, 2012, Volume 50, Number 11, Page 961
[21]
Masatsugu Hamaji, Fengshi Chen, Yukinori Matsuo, Atsushi Kawaguchi, Satoshi Morita, Nami Ueki, Makoto Sonobe, Yasushi Nagata, Masahiro Hiraoka, and Hiroshi Date
The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 2015, Volume 99, Number 4, Page 1122
[22]
Victor A. Ferraris, Daniel L. Davenport, Sibu P. Saha, Alethea Bernard, Peter C. Austin, and Joseph B. Zwischenberger
The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 2011, Volume 91, Number 6, Page 1674
[23]
Sandhya Mehta, Hua Chen, Michael Johnson, and Rajender R. Aparasu
The American Journal of Geriatric Pharmacotherapy, 2011, Volume 9, Number 2, Page 120
[25]
Sandhya Mehta, Hua Chen, Michael L. Johnson, and Rajender R. Aparasu
Drugs & Aging, 2010, Volume 27, Number 10, Page 815
[26]
Dallas P. Seitz, Sudeep S. Gill, Chaim M. Bell, Peter C. Austin, Andrea Gruneir, Geoff M. Anderson, and Paula A. Rochon
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2014, Volume 62, Number 11, Page 2102
[27]
Peter C. Austin
Statistics in Medicine, 2013, Volume 32, Number 16, Page 2837
[28]
Peter C. Austin and Dylan S. Small
Statistics in Medicine, 2014, Volume 33, Number 24, Page 4306
[29]
Liang Li
Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation, 2014, Volume 43, Number 10, Page 2498
[30]
David J. Peters, Andy Hochstetler, Matt DeLisi, and Hui-Ju Kuo
Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 2015, Volume 31, Number 1, Page 149
[31]
Melissa M. Garrido, Amy S. Kelley, Julia Paris, Katherine Roza, Diane E. Meier, R. Sean Morrison, and Melissa D. Aldridge
Health Services Research, 2014, Volume 49, Number 5, Page 1701
[33]
Julie Héroux, Erica E.M. Moodie, Erin Strumpf, Natalie Coyle, Pierre Tousignant, and Mamadou Diop
Statistics in Medicine, 2014, Volume 33, Number 7, Page 1205
[34]
Etienne Gayat, Matthieu Resche-Rigon, Jean-Yves Mary, and Raphaël Porcher
Pharmaceutical Statistics, 2012, Volume 11, Number 3, Page 222
[36]
Felix J. Thoemmes and Eun Sook Kim
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 2011, Volume 46, Number 1, Page 90
[37]
[39]
Robin Mitra and Jerome P. Reiter
Statistics in Medicine, 2011, Volume 30, Number 6, Page 627

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in