Cited by 1,039Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Estimation of Causal Effects using Propensity Score Weighting: An Application to Data on Right Heart Catheterization

Hirano, Keisuke, Imbens, Guido W.·2001·Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/a:1020371312283

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 29 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. P. Rosenbaum, Observational Studies, Springer Verlag, 1985. ESTIMATION OF CAUSAL EFFECTS USING PROPENSITY SCORE WEIGHTING 277

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Hirano, K., & Imbens, G. W.
Affiliations
  • University of Miami (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
Venue
Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology
Published
2001-12
Volume
2
Issue
3-4
Pages
259-278
ISSN
  • 1387-3741 (ISSN-L)
  • 1572-9400
OpenAlex
W2176874128
Cited by
1,039
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 61 · 2020: 61 · 2019: 51 · 2018: 62 · 2017: 44 · 2016: 57 · 2015: 75 · 2014: 85 · 2013: 74 · 2012: 62
FWCI
2.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
causal effect estimation, propensity score weighting, right heart catheterization, regression adjustment, feature selection, estimator stability

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