Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 238

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

Austin, Peter C.·2008·Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pds.1673

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 238

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.