The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A comparison of propensity score methods: a case‐study estimating the effectiveness of post‐AMI statin use
Abstract
There is an increasing interest in the use of propensity score methods to estimate causal effects in observational studies. However, recent systematic reviews have demonstrated that propensity score methods are inconsistently used and frequently poorly applied in the medical literature. In this study, we compared the following propensity score methods for estimating the reduction in all‐cause mortality due to statin therapy for patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction: propensity‐score matching, stratification using the propensity score, covariate adjustment using the propensity score, and weighting using the propensity score. We used propensity score methods to estimate both adjusted treated effects and the absolute and relative risk reduction in all‐cause mortality. We also examined the use of statistical hypothesis testing, standardized differences, box plots, non‐parametric density estimates, and quantile–quantile plots to assess residual confounding that remained after stratification or matching on the propensity score. Estimates of the absolute reduction in 3‐year mortality ranged from 2.1 to 4.5 per cent, while estimates of the relative risk reduction ranged from 13.3 to 17.0 per cent. Adjusted estimates of the reduction in the odds of 3‐year death varied from 15 to 24 per cent across the different propensity score methods. Copyright © 2005 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
An Introduction to the Bootstrap
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1994) · doi:10.1201/9780429246593 · Cited by 40,500
The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects
ROSENBAUM, P. R., & RUBIN, D. B. (1983) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/70.1.41 · Cited by 31,241
An Introduction to the Bootstrap
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1993) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-4541-9 · Cited by 21,230
Harrell, F. E. (2001) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3462-1 · Cited by 9,195
Harrell (2015) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19425-7 · Cited by 6,878
Reducing Bias in Observational Studies Using Subclassification on the Propensity Score
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1984) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1984.10478078 · Cited by 3,082
Estimating Causal Effects from Large Data Sets Using Propensity Scores
Rubin, D. B. (1997) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-127-8_part_2-199710151-00064 · Cited by 2,877
Estimation of Regression Coefficients When Some Regressors are not Always Observed
Robins, J. M., Rotnitzky, A., & Zhao, L. P. (1994) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1994.10476818 · Cited by 2,823
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
Lunceford, J. K., & Davidian, M. (2004) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1903 · Cited by 1,674
Normand, S.-L. T., Landrum, M. B., Guadagnoli, E., Ayanian, J. Z., Ryan, T. J., Cleary, P. D., & McNeil, B. J. (2001) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00321-8 · Cited by 1,235
Adherence with statin therapy in elderly patients with and without acute coronary syndromes
Jackevicius, C. A. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.288.4.462 · Cited by 1,077
Invited Commentary: Propensity Scores
Joffe, M. M., & Rosenbaum, P. R. (1999) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a010011 · Cited by 1,048
Rosenbaum, P. R. (1987) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1987.10478441 · Cited by 997
The Effectiveness of Adjustment by Subclassification in Removing Bias in Observational Studies
Cochran, W. G. (1968) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2528036 · Cited by 961
Controlling Bias in Observational Studies: A Review
Cochran, W. G. (2006) · Matched Sampling for Causal Effects · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511810725.005 · Cited by 958
Confounding and Collapsibility in Causal Inference
Greenland, S., Pearl, J., & Robins, J. M. (1999) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/ss/1009211805 · Cited by 933 · cited 1×
“This is frequently, though mistakenly, thought to be indicative of the presence of unmeasured confounding, but this need not be the case [28, 29].”
BackgroundBootstrap Methods for Developing Predictive Models
Austin, P. C., & Tu, J. V. (2004) · The American Statistician · doi:10.1198/0003130043277 · Cited by 622
Self-citationINTERPRETATION AND CHOICE OF EFFECT MEASURES IN EPIDEMIOLOGIC ANALYSES1
GREENLAND, S. (1987) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114593 · Cited by 543
Shah, B. R., Laupacis, A., Hux, J. E., & Austin, P. C. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.10.016 · Cited by 493
Self-citationRare Outcomes, Common Treatments: Analytic Strategies Using Propensity Scores
Braitman, L. E., & Rosenbaum, P. R. (2002) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-137-8-200210150-00015 · Cited by 364
Rosenbaum, P. R. (1995) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-2443-1 · Cited by 351
Principles for modeling propensity scores in medical research: a systematic literature review
Weitzen, S., Lapane, K. L., Toledano, A. Y., Hume, A. L., & Mor, V. (2004) · Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety · doi:10.1002/pds.969 · Cited by 344
Cheung, B. M. Y., Lauder, I. J., Lau, C., & Kumana, C. R. (2004) · British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2125.2003.02060.x · Cited by 304
Effectiveness of Statin Therapy in Adults With Coronary Heart Disease
Wilt, T. J., Bloomfield, H. E., MacDonald, R., Nelson, D., Rutks, I., Ho, M., Larsen, G., McCall, A., Pineros, S., & Sales, A. (2004) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.164.13.1427 · Cited by 275
Model Selection, Confounder Control, and Marginal Structural Models: Review and New Applications
Joffe, M. M., Ten Have, T. R., Feldman, H. I., & Kimmel, S. E. (2004) · The American Statistician · doi:10.1198/000313004x5824 · Cited by 266
Austin, P. C., Mamdani, M. M., Stukel, T. A., Anderson, G. M., & Tu, J. V. (2005) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.2053 · Cited by 222
Self-citationAgresti, A., & Min, Y. (2003) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1589 · Cited by 92
Propensity score methods in drug safety studies: practice, strengths and limitations
Wang, J., & Donnan, P. T. (2001) · Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety · doi:10.1002/pds.656 · Cited by 44
The use of propensity scores in pharmacoepidemiologic research
Cepeda, M. S. (2000) · Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety · doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-1557(200003/04)9:2<93::aid-pds474>3.0.co;2-i · Cited by 17
D’Agostino (1998) · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19981015)17:19<2265::aid-sim918>3.0.co;2-b
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-citationMatching 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
Self-citationAustin, P. C. (2011) · Pharmaceutical Statistics · doi:10.1002/pst.433 · Cited by 3,949
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Austin, P. C., & Mamdani, M. M.
- Venue
- Statistics in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-10-11
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 2084-2106
- ISSN
- 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0258
- OpenAlex
- W2102520493
- Cited by
- 560
- References
- 31
- FWCI
- 13.73
- 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.
