The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Metrics for covariate balance in cohort studies of causal effects
Abstract
Inferring causation from non‐randomized studies of exposure requires that exposure groups can be balanced with respect to prognostic factors for the outcome. Although there is broad agreement in the literature that balance should be checked, there is confusion regarding the appropriate metric. We present a simulation study that compares several balance metrics with respect to the strength of their association with bias in estimation of the effect of a binary exposure on a binary, count, or continuous outcome. The simulations utilize matching on the propensity score with successively decreasing calipers to produce datasets with varying covariate balance. We propose the post‐matching C‐statistic as a balance metric and found that it had consistently strong associations with estimation bias, even when the propensity score model was misspecified, as long as the propensity score was estimated with sufficient study size. This metric, along with the average standardized difference and the general weighted difference, outperformed all other metrics considered in association with bias, including the unstandardized absolute difference, Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Lévy distances, overlapping coefficient, Mahalanobis balance, and L1 metrics. Of the best‐performing metrics, the C‐statistic and general weighted difference also have the advantage that they automatically evaluate balance on all covariates simultaneously and can easily incorporate balance on interactions among covariates. Therefore, when combined with the usual practice of comparing individual covariate means and standard deviations across exposure groups, these metrics may provide useful summaries of the observed covariate imbalance. Copyright © 2013 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
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
Austin, P. C. (2009) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.3697 · Cited by 6,758
Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference
Ho, D. E., Imai, K., King, G., & Stuart, E. A. (2007) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpl013 · Cited by 4,205
Austin, P. C. (2011) · Pharmaceutical Statistics · doi:10.1002/pst.433 · Cited by 3,949
Multivariate Density Estimation: Theory, Practice, and Visualization
Scott, D. W. (1992) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/9780470316849 · Cited by 3,696
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
Causality: models, reasoning, and inference
(2000) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.38-1494a · Cited by 2,873
Efficient Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Using the Estimated Propensity Score
Hirano, K., Imbens, G. W., & Ridder, G. (2003) · Econometrica · doi:10.1111/1468-0262.00442 · Cited by 2,355
Variable Selection for Propensity Score Models
Brookhart, M. A., Schneeweiss, S., Rothman, K. J., Glynn, R. J., Avorn, J., & Stürmer, T. (2006) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwj149 · Cited by 2,336
Self-citationOveradjustment bias and unnecessary adjustment in epidemiologic studies.
Schisterman, E. F., Cole, S. R., & Platt, R. W. (2009) · Epidemiology · doi:10.1097/ede.0b013e3181a819a1 · Cited by 2,096
Cited by
Desai, R. J., & Franklin, J. M. (2019) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.l5657 · Cited by 657
Self-citationDaru, J., Zamora, J., Fernández-Félix, B. M., Vogel, J., Oladapo, O. T., Morisaki, N., Tunçalp, Ö., Torloni, M. R., Mittal, S., Jayaratne, K., et al. (2018) · The Lancet Global Health · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(18)30078-0 · Cited by 436
Yao, X. I., Wang, X., Speicher, P. J., Hwang, E. S., Cheng, P., Harpole, D. H., Berry, M. F., Schrag, D., & Pang, H. H. (2017) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djw323 · Cited by 386
When and how can real world data analyses substitute for randomized controlled trials?
Franklin, J. M., & Schneeweiss, S. (2017) · Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1002/cpt.857 · Cited by 316
Self-citationPatorno, E., Pawar, A., Franklin, J. M., Najafzadeh, M., Déruaz-Luyet, A., Brodovicz, K. G., Sambevski, S., Bessette, L. G., Santiago Ortiz, A. J., Kulldorff, M., et al. (2019) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.118.039177 · Cited by 215
Self-citationPawar, A., Desai, R. J., Solomon, D. H., Santiago Ortiz, A. J., Gale, S., Bao, M., Sarsour, K., Schneeweiss, S., & Kim, S. C. (2019) · Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases · doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-214367 · Cited by 181
Self-citationFranklin, J. M., Pawar, A., Martin, D., Glynn, R. J., Levenson, M., Temple, R., & Schneeweiss, S. (2020) · Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1002/cpt.1633 · Cited by 119
Self-citationLauffenburger, J. C., Ghazinouri, R., Jan, S., Makanji, S., Ferro, C. A., Lewey, J., Wittbrodt, E., Lee, J., Haff, N., Fontanet, C. P., et al. (2019) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0214754 · Cited by 50
Desai, R. J., Varma, V. R., Gerhard, T., Segal, J., Mahesri, M., Chin, K., Horton, D. B., Kim, S. C., Schneeweiss, S., & Thambisetty, M. (2022) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.6567 · Cited by 45
Self-citationTang, H., Lu, Y., Donahoo, W. T., Shao, H., Shi, L., Fonseca, V. A., Guo, Y., Bian, J., & Guo, J. (2024) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m24-0329 · Cited by 40
Bottigliengo, D., Lorenzoni, G., Ocagli, H., Martinato, M., Berchialla, P., & Gregori, D. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph18136694 · Cited by 13
Metadata
- Authors
- Franklin, J. M., Rassen, J. A., Ackermann, D., Bartels, D. B., & Schneeweiss, S.
- Venue
- Statistics in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-12-09
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1685-1699
- ISSN
- 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0258
- OpenAlex
- W1601608895
- Cited by
- 312
- References
- 40
- FWCI
- 7.74
- 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.
