The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Goodness‐of‐fit diagnostics for the propensity score model when estimating treatment effects using covariate adjustment with the propensity score
Abstract
The propensity score is defined to be a subject's probability of treatment selection, conditional on observed baseline covariates. Conditional on the propensity score, treated and untreated subjects have similar distributions of observed baseline covariates. In the medical literature, there are three commonly employed propensity‐score methods: stratification (subclassification) on the propensity score, matching on the propensity score, and covariate adjustment using the propensity score. Methods have been developed to assess the adequacy of the propensity score model in the context of stratification on the propensity score and propensity‐score matching. However, no comparable methods have been developed for covariate adjustment using the propensity score. Inferences about treatment effect made using propensity‐score methods are only valid if, conditional on the propensity score, treated and untreated subjects have similar distributions of baseline covariates. We develop both quantitative and qualitative methods to assess the balance in baseline covariates between treated and untreated subjects. The quantitative method employs the weighted conditional standardized difference. This is the conditional difference in the mean of a covariate between treated and untreated subjects, in units of the pooled standard deviation, integrated over the distribution of the propensity score. The qualitative method employs quantile regression models to determine whether, conditional on the propensity score, treated and untreated subjects have similar distributions of continuous covariates. We illustrate our methods using a large dataset of patients discharged from hospital with a diagnosis of a heart attack (acute myocardial infarction). The exposure was receipt of a prescription for a beta‐blocker at hospital discharge. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Using Propensity Scores to Help Design Observational Studies: Application to the Tobacco Litigation
Rubin, D. B. (2001) · Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology · doi:10.1023/a:1020363010465 · Cited by 2,228
Cited by
Austin, P. C. (2011) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1080/00273171.2011.568786 · Cited by 12,242
Self-citationAustin, P. C., & Stuart, E. A. (2015) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.6607 · Cited by 4,495
Self-citationRuiz, A., van Hillegersberg, R., Siesling, S., Castro-Benitez, C., Sebagh, M., Wicherts, D. A., de Ligt, K. M., Goense, L., Giacchetti, S., Castaing, D., et al. (2018) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2018.02.024 · Cited by 84
High-throughput target trial emulation for Alzheimer’s disease drug repurposing with real-world data
Zang, C., Zhang, H., Xu, J., Zhang, H., Fouladvand, S., Havaldar, S., Cheng, F., Chen, K., Chen, Y., Glicksberg, B. S., et al. (2023) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-43929-1 · Cited by 69
Gilman, A. B., Hill, K. G., & Hawkins, J. D. (2015) · Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology · doi:10.1007/s40865-015-0002-5 · Cited by 53
Metadata
- Authors
- Austin, P. C.
- Venue
- Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-10-29
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1202-1217
- ISSN
- 1053-8569 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1557
- OpenAlex
- W2152590022
- Cited by
- 238
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 4.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Goodness‐of‐fit diagnostics for the propensity score model when estimating treatment effects using covariate adjustment with the propensity score. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/pds.1673
- The paper
- Austin, P. C. (2008). Goodness‐of‐fit diagnostics for the propensity score model when estimating treatment effects using covariate adjustment with the propensity score. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety. https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.1673
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.