Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,249

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A critical appraisal of propensity‐score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003

Austin, Peter C.·2008·Statistics in Medicine
DOI 10.1002/sim.3150
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Propensity‐score methods are increasingly being used to reduce the impact of treatment‐selection bias in the estimation of treatment effects using observational data. Commonly used propensity‐score methods include covariate adjustment using the propensity score, stratification on the propensity score, and propensity‐score matching. Empirical and theoretical research has demonstrated that matching on the propensity score eliminates a greater proportion of baseline differences between treated and untreated subjects than does stratification on the propensity score. However, the analysis of propensity‐score‐matched samples requires statistical methods appropriate for matched‐pairs data. We critically evaluated 47 articles that were published between 1996 and 2003 in the medical literature and that employed propensity‐score matching. We found that only two of the articles reported the balance of baseline characteristics between treated and untreated subjects in the matched sample and used correct statistical methods to assess the degree of imbalance. Thirteen (28 per cent) of the articles explicitly used statistical methods appropriate for the analysis of matched data when estimating the treatment effect and its statistical significance. Common errors included using the log‐rank test to compare Kaplan–Meier survival curves in the matched sample, using Cox regression, logistic regression, chi‐squared tests, t‐tests, and Wilcoxon rank sum tests in the matched sample, thereby failing to account for the matched nature of the data. We provide guidelines for the analysis and reporting of studies that employ propensity‐score matching. Copyright © 2007 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/sim.3150

Cites

4 of 4 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

Show all 4 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Austin, P. C.
Venue
Statistics in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-11-23
Volume
27
Issue
12
Pages
2037-2049
ISSN
  • 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0258
DOI
10.1002/sim.3150
OpenAlex
W1964475341
Cited by
1,249
References
4
FWCI
27.03
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.