Cited by 657Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Alternative approaches for confounding adjustment in observational studies using weighting based on the propensity score: a primer for practitioners

Open access
Desai, Rishi J, Franklin, Jessica M·2019·BMJ

Abstract

This report aims to provide methodological guidance to help practitioners select the most appropriate weighting method based on propensity scores for their analysis out of many available options (eg, inverse probability treatment weights, standardised mortality ratio weights, fine stratification weights, overlap weights, and matching weights), and outlines recommendations for transparent reporting of studies using weighting based on the propensity scores.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.l5657

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. ReseaRch No commercial reuse: See rights and reprints http://www.bmj.com/permissions Subscribe: http://www.bmj.com/subscribe
  2. Desai RJ, Yoshida K, Huybrechts K, Franklin JM. An empirical evaluation of a propensity score stratification based weighting approach in settings of more than two treatment groups. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2019;28:19-19.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Desai, R. J., & Franklin, J. M.
Affiliations
Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Desai, Rishi J
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2019-10-23
Volume
367
Pages
l5657
ISSN
  • 1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
OpenAlex
W2982188023
Cited by
657
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 76 · 2025: 142 · 2024: 117 · 2023: 108 · 2022: 108 · 2021: 78 · 2020: 26
FWCI
41.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
Brigham and Women's Hospital
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
propensity score weighting, confounding adjustment, observational studies, reporting transparency, causal inference
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Research Design, Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic, Survival Rate, Logistic Models, Treatment Outcome, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Propensity Score, Observational Studies as Topic

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