The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessing balance in measured baseline covariates when using many‐to‐one matching on 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. Propensity‐score matching is a commonly used propensity score method for estimating the effects of treatment on outcomes. Balance diagnostics have been previously described for use when 1:1 matching on the propensity score is employed. We illustrate that these methods can be misleading when many‐to‐one matching on the propensity score is employed. We then propose modifications of these methods that involve weighting each untreated subject by the inverse of the number of untreated subjects in the matched set. We describe both quantitative and qualitative methods to assess the balance in baseline covariates between treated and untreated subjects in a sample obtained by many‐to‐one matching on the propensity score. The quantitative method uses the weighted standardized difference. The qualitative methods employ graphical methods to compare the distribution of continuous baseline covariates between treated and untreated subjects in the weighted sample. We illustrate our methods using a large sample of patients discharged from hospital with a diagnosis of a heart attack (acute myocardial infarction). The exposure was receipt of a prescription for a statin 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. (2009) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.3697 · Cited by 6,758
Self-citationAustin, P. C. (2010) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwq224 · Cited by 673
Self-citationNguyen, T.-L., Collins, G. S., Spence, J., Daurès, J.-P., Devereaux, P. J., Landais, P., & Le Manach, Y. (2017) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0338-0 · Cited by 512
Metrics for covariate balance in cohort studies of causal effects
Franklin, J. M., Rassen, J. A., Ackermann, D., Bartels, D. B., & Schneeweiss, S. (2014) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.6058 · Cited by 312
Metadata
- Authors
- Austin, P. C.
- Venue
- Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-10-29
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1218-1225
- ISSN
- 1053-8569 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1557
- OpenAlex
- W2035305268
- Cited by
- 187
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.59
- 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: Assessing balance in measured baseline covariates when using many‐to‐one matching on the propensity‐score. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/pds.1674
- The paper
- Austin, P. C. (2008). Assessing balance in measured baseline covariates when using many‐to‐one matching on the propensity‐score. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety. https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.1674
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.