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 …

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

©2012 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in