4.2 Article

Comparing treatment effects after adjustment with multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression and propensity score methods

期刊

PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY
卷 17, 期 1, 页码 1-8

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/pds.1520

关键词

confounding; Cox proportional hazards models; hypertension; observational studies; propensity scores

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To compare adjusted effects of drug treatment for hypertension on the risk of stroke from propensity score (PS) methods with a multivariable Cox proportional hazards (Cox PH) regression in an observational study with censored data. Methods From two prospective population-based cohort studies in The Netherlands a selection of subjects was used who either received drug treatment for hypertension (n = 1293) or were untreated 'candidates' for treatment (n = 954). A multivariable Cox PH was performed on the risk of stroke using eight covariates along with three PS methods. Results In multivariable Cox PH regression the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for treatment was 0.64 (CI95%: 0.42, 0.98). After stratification on the PS the HR was 0.58 (CI95%: 0.38, 0.89). Matching on the PS yielded a HR of 0.49 (CI95%: 0.27, 0,88), whereas adjustment with a continuous PS gave similar results as Cox regression. When more covariates were added (not possible in multivariable Cox model) a similar reduction in HR was reached by all PS methods. The inclusion of a simulated balanced covariate gave largest changes in HR using the multivariable Cox model and matching on the PS. Conclusions In PS methods in general a larger number of confounders can be used. In this data set matching on the PS is sensitive to small changes in the model, probably because of the small number of events. Stratification, and covariate adjustment, were less sensitive to the inclusion of a non-confounder than multivariable Cox PH regression. Attention should be paid to PS model building and balance checking. Copyright (c) 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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

4.2
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