Journal
CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL TRIALS
Volume 32, Issue 5, Pages 731-740Publisher
ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2011.05.006
Keywords
Bias; Cox proportional hazard analysis; Logistic regression; Multivariable analysis; Propensity score
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Clinicians often face difficult decisions despite the lack of evidence from randomized trials. Thus, clinical evidence is often shaped by non-randomized studies exploiting multivariable approaches to limit the extent of confounding. Since their introduction, propensity scores have been used more and more frequently to estimate relevant clinical effects adjusting for established confounders, especially in small datasets. However, debate persists on their real usefulness in comparison to standard multivariable approaches such as logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard analysis. This holds even truer in light of key quantitative developments such as bootstrap and Bayesian methods. This qualitative review aims to provide a concise and practical guide to choose between propensity scores and standard multivariable analysis, emphasizing strengths and weaknesses of both approaches. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available