The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prognostic score–based balance measures can be a useful diagnostic for propensity score methods in comparative effectiveness research
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: Examining covariate balance is the prescribed method for determining the degree to which propensity score methods should be successful at reducing bias. This study assessed the performance of various balance measures, including a proposed balance measure based on the prognostic score (similar to a disease risk score), to determine which balance measures best correlate with bias in the treatment effect estimate. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The correlations of multiple common balance measures with bias in the treatment effect estimate produced by weighting by the odds, subclassification on the propensity score, and full matching on the propensity score were calculated. Simulated data were used, based on realistic data settings. Settings included both continuous and binary covariates and continuous covariates only. RESULTS: The absolute standardized mean difference (ASMD) in prognostic scores, the mean ASMD (in covariates), and the mean t-statistic all had high correlations with bias in the effect estimate. Overall, prognostic scores displayed the highest correlations with bias of all the balance measures considered. Prognostic score measure performance was generally not affected by model misspecification, and the prognostic score measure performed well under a variety of scenarios. CONCLUSION: Researchers should consider using prognostic score-based balance measures for assessing the performance of propensity score methods for reducing bias in nonexperimental studies.
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
Austin, P. C. (2009) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.3697 · Cited by 6,758
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
Self-citationMatchIt : Nonparametric Preprocessing for Parametric Causal Inference
Ho, D. E., Imai, K., King, G., & Stuart, E. A. (2011) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v042.i08 · Cited by 4,385
Self-citationUsing 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 1×
“25 represent reasonable cutoffs for acceptable standardized biases; larger standardized biases indicate that groups are too different from one another for reliable comparison [15].”
Schneeweiss, S., Rassen, J. A., Glynn, R. J., Avorn, J., Mogun, H., & Brookhart, M. A. (2009) · Epidemiology · doi:10.1097/ede.0b013e3181a663cc · Cited by 1,128
Optimal Full Matching and Related Designs via Network Flows
Hansen, B. B., & Klopfer, S. O. (2006) · Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics · doi:10.1198/106186006x137047 · Cited by 703
Cited by
Balance diagnostics after propensity score matching
written on behalf of AME Big-Data Clinical Trial Collaborative Group, Zhang, Z., Kim, H. J., Lonjon, G., & Zhu, Y. (2019) · Annals of Translational Medicine · doi:10.21037/atm.2018.12.10 · Cited by 1,031
Chen, J.-J., Wu, C.-Y., Jenq, C.-C., Lee, T.-H., Tsai, C.-Y., Tu, H.-T., Huang, Y.-T., Yen, C.-L., Yen, T.-H., Chen, Y.-C., et al. (2022) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.1169 · Cited by 82
Effect of corticosteroid dosing on outcomes in high‐grade immune checkpoint inhibitor hepatitis
Li, M., Wong, D., Vogel, A. S., Sack, J. S., Rahma, O. E., Hodi, F. S., Zucker, S. D., & Grover, S. (2022) · Hepatology · doi:10.1002/hep.32215 · Cited by 73
Lim, Y., Ohn, J. H., Jeong, J., Ryu, J., Kim, S.-W., Cho, J. H., Park, H.-S., Kim, H. W., Lee, J., Kim, E. S., et al. (2022) · Endocrinology and Metabolism · doi:10.3803/enm.2021.1341 · Cited by 14
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
- Stuart, E. A., Lee, B. K., & Leacy, F. P.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-08
- Volume
- 66
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- S84-S90.e1
- ISSN
- 0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1976167126
- Cited by
- 790
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 6.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Prognostic score–based balance measures can be a useful diagnostic for propensity score methods in comparative effectiveness research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.01.013
- The paper
- Stuart, E. A., Lee, B. K., & Leacy, F. P. (2013). Prognostic score–based balance measures can be a useful diagnostic for propensity score methods in comparative effectiveness research. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.01.013
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.