Cited by 1,128Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyMedical Coding and Health Information

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

High-dimensional propensity score adjustment in studies of treatment effects using health care claims data.

Open access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Adjusting for large numbers of covariates ascertained from patients' health care claims data may improve control of confounding, as these variables may collectively be proxies for unobserved factors. Here, we develop and test an algorithm that empirically identifies candidate covariates, prioritizes covariates, and integrates them into a propensity-score-based confounder adjustment model. METHODS: We developed a multistep algorithm to implement high-dimensional proxy adjustment in claims data. Steps include (1) identifying data dimensions, eg, diagnoses, procedures, and medications; (2) empirically identifying candidate covariates; (3) assessing recurrence of codes; (4) prioritizing covariates; (5) selecting covariates for adjustment; (6) estimating the exposure propensity score; and (7) estimating an outcome model. This algorithm was tested in Medicare claims data, including a study on the effect of Cox-2 inhibitors on reduced gastric toxicity compared with nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). RESULTS: In a population of 49,653 new users of Cox-2 inhibitors or nonselective NSAIDs, a crude relative risk (RR) for upper GI toxicity (RR = 1.09 [95% confidence interval = 0.91-1.30]) was initially observed. Adjusting for 15 predefined covariates resulted in a possible gastroprotective effect (0.94 [0.78-1.12]). A gastroprotective effect became stronger when adjusting for an additional 500 algorithm-derived covariates (0.88 [0.73-1.06]). Results of a study on the effect of statin on reduced mortality were similar. Using the algorithm adjustment confirmed a null finding between influenza vaccination and hip fracture (1.02 [0.85-1.21]). CONCLUSIONS: In typical pharmacoepidemiologic studies, the proposed high-dimensional propensity score resulted in improved effect estimates compared with adjustment limited to predefined covariates, when benchmarked against results expected from randomized trials.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ede.0b013e3181a663cc

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 44 references

1 of the 44 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Arana, 2004, What do we show and who does so? An analysis of the abstracts presented at the 19th ICPE., Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf, 13, S330

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 801–900 of 1,000

Metadata

Authors
Schneeweiss, S., Rassen, J. A., Glynn, R. J., Avorn, J., Mogun, H., & Brookhart, M. A.
Affiliations
Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Schneeweiss, Sebastian
Venue
Epidemiology
Published
2009-07
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
512-522
ISSN
1044-3983 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1967862917
Cited by
1,128
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 51 · 2025: 78 · 2024: 77 · 2023: 62 · 2022: 71 · 2021: 104 · 2020: 87 · 2019: 86 · 2018: 69 · 2017: 73 · 2016: 72 · 2015: 62 · 2014: 61 · 2013: 66 · 2012: 55
FWCI
29.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (1r01lm010213-01)
  • National Institute on Aging (R01AG021950, R01-AG027400, K25AG027400, R01AG018833, R01AG023178)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01-MH078708, U01MH078708)
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (R01-LM010213)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
Keywords
high-dimensional propensity score, confounding adjustment, health insurance claims, COX-2 inhibitors, non-selective NSAIDs, influenza vaccination, hip fracture, Medicare claims data, pharmacoepidemiology
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Algorithms, Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal, Female, Medicare, Humans, Insurance Claim Review, Male, United States, Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic, Treatment Outcome, Pharmacoepidemiology, Risk Assessment, Upper Gastrointestinal Tract, Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors

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