Cited by 379Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

An overview of the objectives of and the approaches to propensity score analyses

Open access
Heinze, Georg, Jüni, Peter·2011·European Heart Journal

Abstract

The assessment of treatment effects from observational studies may be biased with patients not randomly allocated to the experimental or control group. One way to overcome this conceptual shortcoming in the design of such studies is the use of propensity scores to adjust for differences of the characteristics between patients treated with experimental and control interventions. The propensity score is defined as the probability that a patient received the experimental intervention conditional on pre-treatment characteristics at baseline. Here, we review how propensity scores are estimated and how they can help in adjusting the treatment effect for baseline imbalances. We further discuss how to evaluate adequate overlap of baseline characteristics between patient groups, provide guidelines for variable selection and model building in modelling the propensity score, and review different methods of propensity score adjustments. We conclude that propensity analyses may help in evaluating the comparability of patients in observational studies, and may account for more potential confounding factors than conventional covariate adjustment approaches. However, bias due to unmeasured confounding cannot be corrected for.

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 · 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr031

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 25 · Cited by 379

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. Hill HA, Kleinbaum DG. Bias in observational studies. In: Gail M, Benichou J, eds. Encyclopedia of Epidemiologic Methods. Chichester: Wiley; 2000. p94 -100.
  2. Harrel FE. Regression Modeling Strategies: With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic Regression and Survival Analysis. New York, NY: Springer Inc.; 2001.
  3. Cox DR. Regression models and life-tables (with discussion). J R Stat Soc Ser B 1972;34:187 -220.
  4. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observa- tional studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983;70:41 -55.
  5. Tamburino C, Di Salvo ME, Capodanno D, Marzocchi A, Sheiban I, Margheri M, Maresta A, Barlocco F, Sangiorgi G, Piovaccari G, Bartorelli A, Brigori C, Ardissino D, Di Pede F, Ramondo A, Inglese L, Petronio AS, Bolognese L, Benassi A, Palmieri C, Patti A, De Servi S. Are drug-eluting stents superior to bare-metal stents in patients with unprotected non-bifurcational left main disease? Insights from a multicentre registry. Eur Heart J 2009;30:1171 -1179.
  6. Glynn RJ, Schneeweiss S, Stu ¨rmer T. Indications for propensity scores and review of their use in pharmacoepidemiology. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 2006;98: 253 -259.
  7. Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S, Rothman KJ, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Stu ¨rmer T. Variable selection for propensity score models. Am J Epidemiol 2006;163:1149 -1156.
  8. Weitzen S, Lapane KL, Toledano AY, Hume AL, Mor VM. Weaknesses of goodness-of-fit tests for evaluating propensity score models: the case of the omitted confounder. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2005;14:227 -238.
  9. Piazza N, van Gameren M, Ju ¨ni P, Wenaweser P, Carrel T, Onuma Y, Gahl B, Hellige G, Otten A, Kappetein AP, Takkenberg JJM, van Domburg R, de Jaegere P, Serruys PW, Windecker S. A comparison of patient characteristics and 30-day mortality outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement for the treatment of aortic stenosis: a two- centre study. EuroIntervention 2009;5:580 -588.
  10. Rosenbaum PR. Sensitivity to hidden bias. In: Rosenbaum PR, ed. Observational Studies. New York: Springer; 1995. p87 -135.
  11. Austin PC. Primer on statistical interpretation or methods report card on propensity-score matching in the cardiology literature from 2004 to 2006: a sys- tematic review. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2008;1:62-67.
  12. Robins JM, Hernan MA, Brumback B. Marginal structural models and causal infer- ence in epidemiology. Epidemiology 2000;11:550 -560.
  13. Austin PC, Grootendorst P, Anderson GM. A comparison of the ability of differ- ent propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study. Stat Med 2007;26:734 -753.
  14. Austin PC. The relative ability of different propensity score methods to balance measured covariates between treated and untreated subjects in observational studies. Med Decis Making 2009;29:661 -677.
  15. Ahmed A, Husain A, Love TE, Gambassi G, Dell'Italia LJ, Francis GS, Gheorghiade M, Allman RM, Meleth S, Bourge RC. Heart failure, chronic diuretic use, and increase in mortality and hospitalization: an observational study using propensity score methods. Eur Heart J 2006;27:1431 -1439.
  16. D'Agostino RB Jr. Tutorial in biostatistics: propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med 1998;17:2265 -2281.
  17. Schemper M, Henderson R. Predictive accuracy and explained variation in Cox regression. Biometrics 2000;56:249 -255.

Authors
Heinze, G., & Jüni, P.
Affiliations
  • Medical University of Vienna (AT)
  • University of Bern (CH)
Corresponding author
Heinze, Georg
Venue
European Heart Journal
Published
2011-02-28
Volume
32
Issue
14
Pages
1704-1708
ISSN
  • 0195-668X (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-9645
OpenAlex
W2111412070
Cited by
379
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 19
FWCI
24.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Heart Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • reroDoc Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • BORIS (University Library Bern) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Open Access CRIS of the University of Bern
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
propensity score, treatment effect estimation, observational studies, confounding, baseline imbalance, feature selection, propensity score estimation, propensity score adjustment, unmeasured confounding
MeSH terms
Analysis of Variance, Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Bias, Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic, Treatment Outcome, Propensity Score

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