The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Combining Propensity Score Matching with Additional Adjustments for Prognostic Covariates
Abstract
Propensity score matching refers to a class of multivariate methods used in comparative studies to construct treated and matched control samples that have similar distributions on many covariates. This matching is the observational study analog of randomization in ideal experiments, but is far less complete as it can only balance the distribution of observed covariates, whereas randomization balances the distribution of all covariates, both observed and unobserved. An important feature of propensity score matching is that it can be easily combined with model-based regression adjustments or with matching on a subset of special prognostic covariates or combinations of prognostic covariates that have been identified as being especially predictive of the outcome variables. We extend earlier results by developing approximations for the distributions of covariates in matched samples created with linear propensity score methods for the practically important situation where matching uses both the estimated linear propensity scores and a set of special prognostic covariates. Such matching on a subset of special prognostic covariates is an observational study analog of blocking in a randomized experiment. An example combining propensity score matching with Mahalanobis metric matching and regression adjustment is presented that demonstrates the flexibility of these methods for designing an observational study that effectively reduces both bias due to many observed covariates and bias and variability due to a more limited subset of covariates. Of particular importance, the general approach, which includes propensity score matching, was distinctly superior to methods that focus only on a subset of the prognostically most important covariates, even if those covariates account for most of the variation in the outcome variables. Also of importance, analyses based on matched samples were superior to those based on the full unmatched samples, even when regression adjustment was included.
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 Effectiveness of Adjustment by Subclassification in Removing Bias in Observational Studies
Cochran, W. G. (1968) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2528036 · Cited by 961
Matching to remove bias in observational studies
Rubin, D. B. (1973) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529684 · Cited by 737
Self-citationComparison of Multivariate Matching Methods: Structures, Distances, and Algorithms
Gu, X. S., & Rosenbaum, P. R. (1993) · Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics · doi:10.1080/10618600.1993.10474623 · Cited by 702 · cited 3×
“The other notable feature of method 4 is its tendency to place very heavy weight on binary covariates representing rare events; this failing of Mahalanobis metric matching has also been noted by Rosenbaum and Rubin (1985b) and Gu and Rosenbaum (1993). the sample means, by attempting to closely match all of the covaria…”
BackgroundMethod
Cited by
Austin, P. C. (2011) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1080/00273171.2011.568786 · Cited by 12,242
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
Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation
Imbens, G. W., & Wooldridge, J. M. (2009) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.47.1.5 · Cited by 4,926
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
Self-citationWhy Propensity Scores Should Not Be Used for Matching
King, G., & Nielsen, R. (2019) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1017/pan.2019.11 · Cited by 1,706
Rubin, D. B. (2007) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.2739 · Cited by 1,047
Self-citationFor objective causal inference, design trumps analysis
Rubin, D. B. (2008) · The Annals of Applied Statistics · doi:10.1214/08-aoas187 · Cited by 831
Self-citationLittle, R. J., & Rubin, D. B. (2000) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.21.1.121 · Cited by 721
Self-citationOn the Go: how mobile shopping affects customer purchase behavior.
Wang, R. J.-H., Malthouse, E. C., & Krishnamurthi, L. (2015) · Journal of Retailing · doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2015.01.002 · Cited by 559
The Use of Propensity Scores to Assess the Generalizability of Results from Randomized Trials
Stuart, E. A., Cole, S. R., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J. (2011) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society · doi:10.1111/j.1467-985x.2010.00673.x · Cited by 524
Johnson, M. L., Crown, W., Martin, B. C., Dormuth, C. R., & Siebert, U. (2009) · Value in Health · doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00602.x · Cited by 285
Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. S. (2011) · Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis · doi:10.3102/0162373711413814 · Cited by 239
An application of propensity score matching using claims data
Seeger, J. D., Williams, P. L., & Walker, A. M. (2005) · Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety · doi:10.1002/pds.1062 · Cited by 218
Dahabreh, I. J., Sheldrick, R. C., Paulus, J. K., Chung, M., Varvarigou, V., Jafri, H., Rassen, J. A., Trikalinos, T. A., & Kitsios, G. D. (2012) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehs114 · Cited by 204
Ali, M. S., Prieto-Alhambra, D., Lopes, L. C., Ramos, D., Bispo, N., Ichihara, M. Y., Pescarini, J. M., Williamson, E., Fiaccone, R. L., Barreto, M. L., et al. (2019) · Frontiers in Pharmacology · doi:10.3389/fphar.2019.00973 · Cited by 200
Growing Existing Customers’ Revenue Streams through Customer Referral Programs
Garnefeld, I., Eggert, A., Helm, S. V., & Tax, S. S. (2013) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jm.11.0423 · Cited by 171
Gayat, E., Resche‐Rigon, M., Mary, J., & Porcher, R. (2012) · Pharmaceutical Statistics · doi:10.1002/pst.537 · Cited by 136
Takada, K., Shimokawa, M., Takamori, S., Shimamatsu, S., Hirai, F., Tagawa, T., Okamoto, T., Hamatake, M., Tsuchiya‐Kawano, Y., Otsubo, K., et al. (2021) · International Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1002/ijc.33557 · Cited by 100
Cook, T. D., Steiner, P. M., & Pohl, S. (2009) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1080/00273170903333673 · Cited by 81
Tripney, J., Hombrados, J., Newman, M., Hovish, K., Brown, C., Steinka-Fry, K., & Wilkey, E. (2013) · Campbell Systematic Reviews: Better Evidence for a Better World · doi:10.4073/csr.2013.9 · Cited by 72
Townsend, S. R., Phillips, G. S., Duseja, R., Tefera, L., Cruikshank, D., Dickerson, R., Nguyen, H. B., Schorr, C. A., Levy, M. M., Dellinger, R. P., et al. (2022) · CHEST · doi:10.1016/j.chest.2021.07.2167 · Cited by 69
Machine Learning in Policy Evaluation: New Tools for Causal Inference
Kreif, N., & DiazOrdaz, K. (2019) · Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Economics and Finance · doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190625979.013.256 · Cited by 57
Chen, C., Bai, Y., & Wang, R. (2019) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444819828718 · Cited by 43
Butry, D. T. (2009) · Environmental and Ecological Statistics · doi:10.1007/s10651-007-0083-3 · Cited by 33
Ramos-Olazagasti, M. A., Shrout, P. E., Yoshikawa, H., Canino, G. J., & Bird, H. R. (2013) · Development and Psychopathology · doi:10.1017/s0954579413000151 · Cited by 31
Metadata
- Authors
- Rubin, D. B., & Thomas, N.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Statistical Association
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2000-06
- Volume
- 95
- Issue
- 450
- Pages
- 573-585
- ISSN
- 0162-1459 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-274X
- OpenAlex
- W4241916448
- Cited by
- 513
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 4.50
- 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.
