4.5 Article

Using propensity scores to estimate effects of treatment initiation decisions: State of the science

期刊

STATISTICS IN MEDICINE
卷 40, 期 7, 页码 1718-1735

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/sim.8866

关键词

comparative effectiveness research; propensity scores; real‐ world data; real‐ world evidence; review

资金

  1. International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology
  2. National Institute on Aging [R01 AG056479]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Propensity score methods are effective in reducing bias from measured confounding in nonexperimental studies, leading to less biased treatment effect estimates. This methodology, formalized by Rosenbaum and Rubin in 1983, has been increasingly used in various scientific disciplines, particularly in making single treatment decisions between two therapeutic options. Propensity score analysis includes aspects such as alignment with the potential outcomes framework, implications for study design, estimation procedures, implementation options, and reporting.
Confounding can cause substantial bias in nonexperimental studies that aim to estimate causal effects. Propensity score methods allow researchers to reduce bias from measured confounding by summarizing the distributions of many measured confounders in a single score based on the probability of receiving treatment. This score can then be used to mitigate imbalances in the distributions of these measured confounders between those who received the treatment of interest and those in the comparator population, resulting in less biased treatment effect estimates. This methodology was formalized by Rosenbaum and Rubin in 1983 and, since then, has been used increasingly often across a wide variety of scientific disciplines. In this review article, we provide an overview of propensity scores in the context of real-world evidence generation with a focus on their use in the setting of single treatment decisions, that is, choosing between two therapeutic options. We describe five aspects of propensity score analysis: alignment with the potential outcomes framework, implications for study design, estimation procedures, implementation options, and reporting. We add context to these concepts by highlighting how the types of comparator used, the implementation method, and balance assessment techniques have changed over time. Finally, we discuss evolving applications of propensity scores.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据