Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details

The International Journal of Biostatistics

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

2 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2015: 0.667
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.188

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.495
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 0.180
Impact per Publication (IPP) 2015: 0.319

Mathematical Citation Quotient (MCQ) 2015: 0.04

Online
ISSN
1557-4679
See all formats and pricing

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

Rosalba Radice
  • CLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
/ Roland Ramsahai
  • Centre for Statistical Methodology, LSHTM
/ Richard Grieve
  • Centre for Statistical Methodology, LSHTM
/ Noemi Kreif
  • Centre for Statistical Methodology, LSHTM
/ Zia Sadique
  • Centre for Statistical Methodology, LSHTM
/ Jasjeet S. Sekhon
  • University of California, Berkeley
Published Online: 2012-08-07 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/1557-4679.1382

Abstract

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, ISSN (Online) 1557-4679, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/1557-4679.1382. Export Citation

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]
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, Page 23222
[2]
Lorenzo Del Sorbo, Lara Pisani, Claudia Filippini, Vito Fanelli, Luca Fasano, Pierpaolo Terragni, Andrea Dell’Amore, Rosario Urbino, Luciana Mascia, Andrea Evangelista, Camillo Antro, Raffaele D’Amato, Maria José Sucre, Umberto Simonetti, Pietro Persico, Stefano Nava, and V. Marco Ranieri
Critical Care Medicine, 2015, Volume 43, Number 1, Page 120
[3]
Noémi Kreif, Richard Grieve, Rosalba Radice, and Jasjeet S. Sekhon
Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 2013, Volume 13, Number 2-4, Page 174
[4]
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
[5]
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