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.

IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.840
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.000

CiteScore 2017: 0.97

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 1.150
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 1.022

Mathematical Citation Quotient (MCQ) 2016: 0.09

See all formats and pricing
More options …

Evaluating treatment effectiveness in patient subgroups: a comparison of propensity score methods with an automated matching approach

Rosalba Radice / Roland Ramsahai / Richard Grieve / Noemi Kreif / Zia Sadique / Jasjeet S. Sekhon
Published Online: 2012-08-07 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/1557-4679.1382


Propensity score (Pscore) matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) can remove bias due to observed confounders, if the Pscore is correctly specified. Genetic Matching (GenMatch) matches on the Pscore and individual covariates using an automated search algorithm to balance covariates. This paper compares common ways of implementing Pscore matching and IPTW, with Genmatch for balancing time-constant baseline covariates}. The methods are considered when estimates of treatment effectiveness are required for patient subgroups, and the treatment allocation process differs by subgroup. We apply these methods in a prospective cohort study that estimates the effectiveness of Drotrecogin alfa activated, for subgroups of patients with severe sepsis. In a simulation study we compare the methods when the Pscore is correctly specified, and then misspecified by ignoring the subgroup-specific treatment allocation. The simulations also consider poor overlap in baseline covariates, and different sample sizes. In the case study, GenMatch reports better covariate balance than IPTW or Pscore matching. In the simulations with correctly specified Pscores, good overlap and reasonable sample sizes, all methods report minimal bias. When the Pscore is misspecified, GenMatch reports the least imbalance and bias. With small sample sizes, IPTW is the most efficient approach, but all methods report relatively high bias of treatment effects. This study shows that overall GenMatch achieves the best covariate balance for each subgroup, and is more robust to Pscore misspecification than common alternative Pscore approaches.

Keywords: confounding; observational studies; matching; propensity score methods; subgroup analysis

About the article

Published Online: 2012-08-07

Citation Information: The International Journal of Biostatistics, Volume 8, Issue 1, ISSN (Online) 1557-4679, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/1557-4679.1382.

Export Citation

©2012 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

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.

Rohan Khera, Ambarish Pandey, Nilay Kumar, Rajeev Singh, Shah Bano, Harsh Golwala, Dharam J. Kumbhani, Saket Girotra, and Gregg C. Fonarow
Circulation: Heart Failure, 2016, Volume 9, Number 11
John K.M. Kuwornu, Evelyn Osei, Yaw B. Osei-Asare, and Mohamed Porgo
Development in Practice, 2018, Page 1
John W. Stevens, Christine Fletcher, Gerald Downey, and Anthea Sutton
Research Synthesis Methods, 2018, Volume 9, Number 2, Page 148
Shirley V Wang, Yinzhu Jin, Bruce Fireman, Susan Gruber, Mengdong He, Richard Wyss, HoJin Shin, Yong Ma, Stephine Keeton, Sara Karami, Jacqueline M Major, Sebastian Schneeweiss, and Joshua J Gagne
American Journal of Epidemiology, 2018
Kara S. Riehman, Robert L. Stephens, Joenell Henry-Tanner, and Durado Brooks
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2017
Shirley V. Wang, Mengdong He, Yinzhu Jin, Richard Wyss, HoJin Shin, Yong Ma, Stephine Keeton, Bruce Fireman, Sara Karami, Jacqueline M. Major, Sebastian Schneeweiss, and Joshua J. Gagne
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 2017
Anthony J. Zagar, Zbigniew Kadziola, Ilya Lipkovich, and Douglas E. Faries
Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 2017, Volume 27, Number 3, Page 535
Noémi Kreif, Susan Gruber, Rosalba Radice, Richard Grieve, and Jasjeet S Sekhon
Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 2016, Volume 25, Number 5, Page 2315
Abdullah S. Terkawi, Sarah K. Larkin, Siny Tsang, Jessica S. Sheeran, and Mohamed Tiouririne
Journal of Anesthesia, 2016, Volume 30, Number 5, Page 796
K. Ellicott Colson, Kara E. Rudolph, Scott C. Zimmerman, Dana E. Goin, Elizabeth A. Stuart, Mark van der Laan, and Jennifer Ahern
Scientific Reports, 2016, Volume 6, Number 1
Noémi Kreif, Richard Grieve, Rosalba Radice, and Jasjeet S. Sekhon
Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 2013, Volume 13, Number 2-4, Page 174
Shingo Yamada, Atsushi Kawaguchi, Takumi Kawaguchi, Nobuyoshi Fukushima, Ryoko Kuromatsu, Shuji Sumie, Akio Takata, Masahito Nakano, Manabu Satani, Tatsuyuki Tonan, Kiminori Fujimoto, Hiroji Shima, Tatsuyuki Kakuma, Takuji Torimura, Michael R. Charlton, and Michio Sata
Hepatology Research, 2014, Volume 44, Number 8, Page 837
Steven M. Frank, Elizabeth C. Wick, Amy E. Dezern, Paul M. Ness, Jack O. Wasey, Andrew C. Pippa, Elizabeth Dackiw, and Linda M.S. Resar
Transfusion, 2014, Volume 54, Number 10pt2, Page 2668

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in