The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal hazard ratios

Abstract

Propensity score methods are increasingly being used to reduce or minimize the effects of confounding when estimating the effects of treatments, exposures, or interventions when using observational or non‐randomized data. Under the assumption of no unmeasured confounders, previous research has shown that propensity score methods allow for unbiased estimation of linear treatment effects (e.g., differences in means or proportions). However, in biomedical research, time‐to‐event outcomes occur frequently. There is a paucity of research into the performance of different propensity score methods for estimating the effect of treatment on time‐to‐event outcomes. Furthermore, propensity score methods allow for the estimation of marginal or population‐average treatment effects. We conducted an extensive series of Monte Carlo simulations to examine the performance of propensity score matching (1:1 greedy nearest‐neighbor matching within propensity score calipers), stratification on the propensity score, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score, and covariate adjustment using the propensity score to estimate marginal hazard ratios. We found that both propensity score matching and IPTW using the propensity score allow for the estimation of marginal hazard ratios with minimal bias. Of these two approaches, IPTW using the propensity score resulted in estimates with lower mean squared error when estimating the effect of treatment in the treated. Stratification on the propensity score and covariate adjustment using the propensity score result in biased estimation of both marginal and conditional hazard ratios. Applied researchers are encouraged to use propensity score matching and IPTW using the propensity score when estimating the relative effect of treatment on time‐to‐event outcomes. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Shown for reading. Its publisher allows quoting it, not republishing it.

References 37

1. 1.

   Cook TD, DeMets DL. Introduction to Statistical Methods for Clinical Trials. 2008.

   Not in our library

2. 2.

   Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70:41-55.

   Not in our library

3. 3.

   Weitzen S, Lapane KL, Toledano AY, Hume AL, Mor V. Principles for modeling propensity scores in medical research: a systematic literature review. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety. 2004;13(12):841-853.

   Not in our library10.1002/pds.969

4. 4.

   Austin PC. A critical appraisal of propensity-score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003. Statistics in Medicine. 2008;27(12):2037-2049.

   Not in our library10.1002/sim.3150

5. 5.

   Austin PC, Manca A, Zwarenstein M, Juurlink DN, Stanbrook MB. A substantial and confusing variation exists in handling of baseline covariates in randomized controlled trials: a review of trials published in leading medical journals. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2010;63(2):142-153.

   Not in our library10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.002

6. 6.

   Austin PC, Grootendorst P, Normand SL, Anderson GM. Conditioning on the propensity score can result in biased estimation of common measures of treatment effect: a Monte Carlo study. Statistics in Medicine. 2007;26(4):754-768.

   Not in our library10.1002/sim.2618

7. 7.

   Austin PC. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios. Statistics in Medicine. 2007;26(16):3078-3094.

   Not in our library10.1002/sim.2781

8. 8.

   Austin PC. The performance of different propensity-score methods for estimating relative risks. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2008;61(6):537-545.

   Not in our library10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.07.011

9. 9.
   The performance of different propensity-score methods for estimating differences in proportions (risk differences or absolute risk reductions) in observational studies · 2010

   No notice
10. 10.

    Greenland S. Interpretation and choice of effect measures in epidemiologic analyses. American Journal of Epidemiology. 1987;125(5):761-768.

    Not in our library10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114593

11. 11.

    Gail MH, Wieand S, Piantadosi S. Biased estimates of treatment effect in randomized experiments with nonlinear regressions and omitted covariates. Biometrika. 1984;7:431-444.

    Not in our library

12. 12.

    Rosenbaum PR, Armitage P, Colton T. Propensity score. Encyclopedia of Biostatistics. 2005;4267-4272.

    Not in our library

13. 13.

    Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician. 1985;39:33-38.

    Not in our library

14. 14.
    Optimal caliper widths for propensity‐score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies · 2011

    No notice
15. 15.

    Lin DY, Wei LJ. The robust inference for the proportional hazards model. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1989;84:1074-1078.

    Not in our library

16. 16.

    Cummings P, McKnight B, Greenland S. Matched cohort methods for injury research. Epidemiologic Reviews. 2003;25:43-50.

    Not in our library10.1093/epirev/mxg002

17. 17.

    Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1984;79:516-524.

    Not in our library

18. 18.

    Cochran WG. The effectiveness of adjustment by subclassification in removing bias in observational studies. Biometrics. 1968;24(2):295-313.

    Not in our library

19. 19.

    Lunceford JK, Davidian M. Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of causal treatment effects: a comparative study. Statistics in Medicine. 2004;23(19):2937-2960.

    Not in our library10.1002/sim.1903

20. 20.

    Morgan SL, Todd JL. A diagnostic routine for the detection of consequential heterogeneity of causal effects. Sociological Methodology. 2008;38:231-281.

    Not in our library

21. 21.

    Joffe MM, Ten Have TR, Feldman HI, Kimmel SE. Model selection, confounder control, and marginal structural models: Review and new applications. The American Statistician. 2004;58:272-279.

    Not in our library

22. 22.

    Bender R, Augustin T, Blettner M. Generating survival times to simulate Cox proportional hazards models. Statistics in Medicine. 2005;24(11):1713-1723.

    Not in our library10.1002/sim.2059

23. 23.

    Austin PC. A data-generation process for data with specified risk differences or numbers needed to treat. Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation. 2010;39:563-577.

    Not in our library

24. 24.

    Austin PC, Stafford J. The performance of two data-generation processes for data with specified marginal treatment odds ratios. Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation. 2008;37:1039-1051.

    Not in our library

25. 25.

    Austin PC, Grootendorst P, Anderson GM. A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study. Statistics in Medicine. 2007;26(4):734-753.

    Not in our library10.1002/sim.2580

26. 26.

    Neuhaus JM, Kalbfleish JD, Hauck WW. A comparison of cluster-specific and population-averaged approaches for analyzing correlated binary data. International Statistical Review. 1991;59(1):25-35.

    Not in our library

27. 27.

    Pocock SJ, Assmann SE, Enos LE, Kasten LE. Subgroup analysis, covariate adjustment and baseline comparisons in clinical trial reporting: current practice and problems. Statistics in Medicine. 2002;21(19):2917-2930.

    Not in our library10.1002/sim.1296

28. 28.

    Austin PC. Type I error rates, coverage of confidence intervals, and variance estimation in propensity-score matched analyses. International Journal of Biostatistics. 2009;5.

    Not in our library10.2202/1557-4679.1146

29. 29.

    Cole SR, Hernan MA. Adjusted survival curves with inverse probability weights. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine. 2004;75:45-49.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cmpb.2003.10.004

30. 30.

    Xie J, Liu C. Adjusted Kaplan-Meier estimator and log-rank test with inverse probability of treatment weighting for survival data. Statistics in Medicine. 2005;24(20):3089-3110.

    Not in our library10.1002/sim.2174

31. 31.

    Lee BK, Lessler J, Stuart EA. Improving propensity score weighting using machine learning. Statistics in Medicine. 2010;29(3):337-346.

    Not in our library10.1002/sim.3782

32. 32.

    Setoguchi S, Schneeweiss S, Brookhart MA, Glynn RJ, Cook EF. Evaluating uses of data mining techniques in propensity score estimation: a simulation study. Pharmacoepidemiolgy and Drug Safety. 2008;17(6):546-555.

    Not in our library10.1002/pds.1555

33. 33.

    Austin PC. Statistical criteria for selecting the optimal number of untreated subjects matched to each treated subject when using many-to-one matching on the propensity score. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2010;172(9):1092-1097.

    Not in our library10.1093/aje/kwq224

34. 34.

    Austin PC. Some methods of propensity-score matching had superior performance to others: results of an empirical investigation and Monte Carlo simulations. Biometrical Journal. 2009;51(1):171-184.

    Not in our library10.1002/bimj.200810488

35. 35.

    Rosenbaum PR. Observational Studies. 2002.

    Not in our library

36. 36.
    Comparing paired vs non‐paired statistical methods of analyses when making inferences about absolute risk reductions in propensity‐score matched samples · 2011

    No notice
37. 37.

    Gayat E, Resche-Rigon M, Mary JY, Porcher R. Propensity score applied to survival data analysis through proportional hazards models: a Monte Carlo study. Pharmaceutical Statistics. 2012;11(3):222-229.

    Not in our library10.1002/pst.537

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.