Comparison of Propensity Score Methods and Covariate Adjustment: Evaluation in 4 Cardiovascular Studies.


Elze, MC; Gregson, J; Baber, U; Williamson, E; Sartori, S; Mehran, R; Nichols, M; Stone, GW; Pocock, SJ; (2016) Comparison of Propensity Score Methods and Covariate Adjustment: Evaluation in 4 Cardiovascular Studies. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 69 (3). pp. 345-357. ISSN 0735-1097 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.060

This is the latest version of this item. Earlier version may have full text manuscript

Full text not available from this repository. (Request a copy)

Abstract

: Propensity scores (PS) are an increasingly popular method to adjust for confounding in observational studies. Propensity score methods have theoretical advantages over conventional covariate adjustment, but their relative performance in real-word scenarios is poorly characterized. We used datasets from 4 large-scale cardiovascular observational studies (PROMETHEUS, ADAPT-DES [the Assessment of Dual AntiPlatelet Therapy with Drug-Eluting Stents], THIN [The Health Improvement Network], and CHARM [Candesartan in Heart Failure-Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity]) to compare the performance of conventional covariate adjustment with 4 common PS methods: matching, stratification, inverse probability weighting, and use of PS as a covariate. We found that stratification performed poorly with few outcome events, and inverse probability weighting gave imprecise estimates of treatment effect and undue influence to a small number of observations when substantial confounding was present. Covariate adjustment and matching performed well in all of our examples, although matching tended to give less precise estimates in some cases. PS methods are not necessarily superior to conventional covariate adjustment, and care should be taken to select the most suitable method.<br/>

Item Type: Article
Faculty and Department: Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health > Dept of Medical Statistics
Research Centre: Centre for Statistical Methodology
EHR Research Group
PubMed ID: 28104076
Web of Science ID: 392993800012
URI: http://researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk/id/eprint/3396916

Available Versions of this Item

Statistics


Download activity - last 12 months
Downloads since deposit
0Downloads
42Hits
Accesses by country - last 12 months
Accesses by referrer - last 12 months
Impact and interest
Additional statistics for this record are available via IRStats2

Actions (login required)

Edit Item Edit Item