The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of causal treatment effects: a comparative study
Abstract
Estimation of treatment effects with causal interpretation from observational data is complicated because exposure to treatment may be confounded with subject characteristics. The propensity score, the probability of treatment exposure conditional on covariates, is the basis for two approaches to adjusting for confounding: methods based on stratification of observations by quantiles of estimated propensity scores and methods based on weighting observations by the inverse of estimated propensity scores. We review popular versions of these approaches and related methods offering improved precision, describe theoretical properties and highlight their implications for practice, and present extensive comparisons of performance that provide guidance for practical use. Copyright © 2004 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
Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies
Rubin, D. B. (1974) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0037350 · Cited by 9,436
Marginal Structural Models and Causal Inference in Epidemiology
Robins, J. M., Hernán, M. Á., & Brumback, B. (2000) · Epidemiology · doi:10.1097/00001648-200009000-00011 · Cited by 5,581
Hirano, K., & Imbens, G. W. (2001) · Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology · doi:10.1023/a:1020371312283 · Cited by 1,039
Cited by
Austin, P. C. (2011) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1080/00273171.2011.568786 · Cited by 12,242
Matching Methods for Causal Inference: A Review and a Look Forward
Stuart, E. A. (2010) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/09-sts313 · Cited by 5,478
Austin, P. C., & Stuart, E. A. (2015) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.6607 · Cited by 4,495
Doubly robust estimation in missing data and causal inference models
Bang, H., & Robins, J. M. (2005) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.1541-0420.2005.00377.x · Cited by 1,998
Why Propensity Scores Should Not Be Used for Matching
King, G., & Nielsen, R. (2019) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1017/pan.2019.11 · Cited by 1,706
Dataset Shift in Machine Learning
(2008) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262170055.001.0001 · Cited by 1,553
Doubly robust estimation of causal effects
Funk, M. J., Westreich, D., Wiesen, C., Stürmer, T., Brookhart, M. A., & Davidian, M. (2011) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwq439 · Cited by 1,158
Self-citationThe performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal hazard ratios
Austin, P. C. (2013) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.5705 · Cited by 1,006
Harder, V. S., Stuart, E. A., & Anthony, J. C. (2010) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0019623 · Cited by 802
Muller, C. J., & MacLehose, R. F. (2014) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dyu029 · Cited by 775
Addressing extreme propensity scores via the overlap weights
Li, F., & Thomas, L. E. (2018) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwy201 · Cited by 694
Generalizing Observational Study Results: Applying Propensity Score Methods to Complex Surveys
DuGoff, E. H., Schuler, M., & Stuart, E. A. (2014) · Health Services Research · doi:10.1111/1475-6773.12090 · Cited by 605
A Systematic Review of Propensity Score Methods in the Social Sciences
Thoemmes, F. J., & Kim, E. S. (2011) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1080/00273171.2011.540475 · Cited by 577
Austin, P. C. (2016) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.7084 · Cited by 542
The Use of Propensity Scores to Assess the Generalizability of Results from Randomized Trials
Stuart, E. A., Cole, S. R., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J. (2011) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society · doi:10.1111/j.1467-985x.2010.00673.x · Cited by 524
Nguyen, 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
The importance of covariate selection in controlling for selection bias in observational studies.
Steiner, P. M., Cook, T. D., Shadish, W. R., & Clark, M. H. (2010) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0018719 · Cited by 490
New evidence on the finite sample properties of propensity score reweighting and matching estimators
Busso, M., DiNardo, J., & McCrary, J. (2014) · Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.1162/rest_a_00431 · Cited by 428
An Introduction to the Augmented Inverse Propensity Weighted Estimator
Glynn, A. N., & Quinn, K. M. (2010) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpp036 · Cited by 374
A Survey of Learning Causality with Data: Problems and Methods
Guo, R., Cheng, L., Li, J., Hahn, P. R., & Liu, H. (2021) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3397269 · Cited by 362
Synthetic and External Controls in Clinical Trials – A Primer for Researchers
Thorlund, K., Dron, L., Park, J. J., & Mills, E. J. (2020) · Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.2147/clep.s242097 · Cited by 257
Improving propensity score estimators’ robustness to model misspecification using super learner.
Pirracchio, R., Petersen, M. L., & van der Laan, M. (2015) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwu253 · Cited by 186
Ritchie, J., Green, D., Chrysochou, C., Chalmers, N., Foley, R. N., & Kalra, P. A. (2014) · American Journal of Kidney Diseases · doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2013.07.020 · Cited by 195
Roberts, A. L., Gilman, S. E., Fitzmaurice, G., Decker, M. R., & Koenen, K. C. (2010) · Epidemiology · doi:10.1097/ede.0b013e3181f39f03 · Cited by 192
The Impact Of Carbon Trading On Industry: Evidence From German Manufacturing Firms
Wagner, U. J., Rehdanz, K., & Petrick, S. (2014) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2389800 · Cited by 140
A general double robustness result for estimating average treatment effects
Słoczyński, T., & Wooldridge, J. M. (2018) · Econometric Theory · doi:10.1017/s0266466617000056 · Cited by 122
Naylor, M. D., Hirschman, K. B., Hanlon, A. L., Bowles, K. H., Bradway, C., McCauley, K. M., & Pauly, M. V. (2014) · Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research · doi:10.2217/cer.14.14 · Cited by 91
Cook, T. D., Steiner, P. M., & Pohl, S. (2009) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1080/00273170903333673 · Cited by 81
Yang, S., & Ding, P. (2018) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/asy008 · Cited by 75
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
Doubly robust uniform confidence band for the conditional average treatment effect function
Lee, S., Okui, R., & Whang, Y. (2017) · Journal of Applied Econometrics · doi:10.1002/jae.2574 · Cited by 67
Machine Learning in Policy Evaluation: New Tools for Causal Inference
Kreif, N., & DiazOrdaz, K. (2019) · Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Economics and Finance · doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190625979.013.256 · Cited by 57
Understanding Marginal Structural Models for Time-Varying Exposures: Pitfalls and Tips
Shinozaki, T., & Suzuki, E. (2020) · Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.2188/jea.je20200226 · Cited by 44
Wan, G. J., Kozma, C. M., Slaton, T. L., Olson, W. H., & Feagan, B. G. (2014) · Journal of Medical Economics · doi:10.3111/13696998.2014.909436 · Cited by 33
Pressler, T. R., & Kaizar, E. E. (2013) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.5802 · Cited by 32
Reeves, G. R., Wang, T. Y., Reid, K. J., Alexander, K. P., Decker, C., Ahmad, H., Spertus, J. A., & Peterson, E. D. (2008) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.168.19.2111 · Cited by 25
Callan, J. A., Kazantzis, N., Park, S. Y., Moore, C. G., Thase, M. E., Minhajuddin, A., Kornblith, S., & Siegle, G. J. (2019) · Behavior Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.beth.2018.05.010 · Cited by 22
Schwartz, J. D., Di, Q., Requia, W. J., Dominici, F., & Zanobetti, A. (2021) · Epidemiology · doi:10.1097/ede.0000000000001354 · Cited by 17
Learning Cost-Effective Treatment Regimes using Markov Decision Processes
Lakkaraju, H., & Rudin, C. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1610.06972 · Cited by 12
Individualised treatment effects of corticosteroids in IgA nephropathy
Hölscher, D. L., Schmitz, N. E. J., Niggemeier, L., Pilva, P., Strauch, M., Tesar, V., Barratt, J., Roberts, I. S. D., Coppo, R., Barisoni, L., et al. (2026) · eBioMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2026.106396 · Cited by 2
(2022) · doi:10.1145/3531146.3533103 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Lunceford, J. K., & Davidian, M.
- Venue
- Statistics in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-08-24
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 19
- Pages
- 2937-2960
- ISSN
- 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0258
- OpenAlex
- W2168639902
- Cited by
- 1,674
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 13.45
- 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
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.
