The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Double-adjustment in propensity score matching analysis: choosing a threshold for considering residual imbalance
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Double-adjustment can be used to remove confounding if imbalance exists after propensity score (PS) matching. However, it is not always possible to include all covariates in adjustment. We aimed to find the optimal imbalance threshold for entering covariates into regression. METHODS: We conducted a series of Monte Carlo simulations on virtual populations of 5,000 subjects. We performed PS 1:1 nearest-neighbor matching on each sample. We calculated standardized mean differences across groups to detect any remaining imbalance in the matched samples. We examined 25 thresholds (from 0.01 to 0.25, stepwise 0.01) for considering residual imbalance. The treatment effect was estimated using logistic regression that contained only those covariates considered to be unbalanced by these thresholds. RESULTS: We showed that regression adjustment could dramatically remove residual confounding bias when it included all of the covariates with a standardized difference greater than 0.10. The additional benefit was negligible when we also adjusted for covariates with less imbalance. We found that the mean squared error of the estimates was minimized under the same conditions. CONCLUSION: If covariate balance is not achieved, we recommend reiterating PS modeling until standardized differences below 0.10 are achieved on most covariates. In case of remaining imbalance, a double adjustment might be worth considering.
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
Figures
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“residual imbalance was handled through double adjustment in the outcome analyses to achieve double robustness to potential model misspecification.46,47”
From Hysterectomy versus uterine preservation for pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a prospective cohort study (2025) · cites this paper as [47]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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 central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects
ROSENBAUM, P. R., & RUBIN, D. B. (1983) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/70.1.41 · Cited by 31,241
A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis
Peduzzi, P., Concato, J., Kemper, E., Holford, T. R., & Feinstein, A. R. (1996) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00236-3 · Cited by 9,655
Austin, P. C. (2009) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.3697 · Cited by 6,758
Relaxing the Rule of Ten Events per Variable in Logistic and Cox Regression
Vittinghoff, E., & McCulloch, C. E. (2007) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwk052 · Cited by 4,359
Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference
Ho, D. E., Imai, K., King, G., & Stuart, E. A. (2007) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpl013 · Cited by 4,285
Lee, T. H.-Y., Marcantonio, E. R., Mangione, C. M., Thomas, E. J., Polanczyk, C. A., Cook, E. F., Sugarbaker, D. J., Donaldson, M. C., Poss, R., Ho, K. K. L., et al. (1999) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/01.cir.100.10.1043 · Cited by 3,749
Variable Selection for Propensity Score Models
Brookhart, M. A., Schneeweiss, S., Rothman, K. J., Glynn, R. J., Avorn, J., & Stürmer, T. (2006) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwj149 · Cited by 2,336
Peduzzi, P., Concato, J., Feinstein, A. R., & Holford, T. R. (1995) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(95)00048-8 · Cited by 2,154
Lunceford, J. K., & Davidian, M. (2004) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1903 · Cited by 1,676
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Ho DE, Imai K, King G, Stuart EA. Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Polit Anal. 2006;15(3):199–236.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 501–513 of 513
Primary care use and kidney transplant outcomes among patients on hemodialysis – a cohort study
Le, D., Najar, H., Backer, Z., Singh, R., Kim, B., Flattau, A., Grams, M. E., Plantinga, L., & Jaar, B. G. (2026) · BMC Nephrology · doi:10.1186/s12882-026-05335-9
Naß, P., Schüttig, W., Flothow, A., Coors, M., Sundmacher, L., Stolz, R., Klein, A., Joos, S., der Heiden, I. A., Jöchner, A.-K., et al. (2026) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0357117
Jeon, S. M., Kim, D., Kwon, Y., & Kwon, J. (2026) · Asian Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.asjsur.2026.08.101
Myers, C. W., Polycarpou, A., Nguyen, S., Benyo-Albrecht, K., John, R., Kelly, R. F., Cogswell, R. J., & Huddleston, S. J. (2026) · Journal of Cardiac Surgery · doi:10.1155/jocs/2593492
Cheng, T., Wang, P., Ren, J., Ji, S., Zhang, G., Liu, Z., & Tao, H. (2026) · Medicine · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000050754
Kim, Y., Chang, H., & Kim, T. H. (2026) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare14193186
Den, J., Nelson, N., Vaghjiani, R. G., & Klimberg, V. S. (2026) · Journal of Surgical Oncology · doi:10.1002/jso.70411
Childhood sexual abuse, marital discord, and marital disruption: Propensity score analyses
Sellery, P., & Whisman, M. A. (2026) · Child Abuse & Neglect · doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2026.108379
Li, L., Zhang, D., Xu, M., Li, S., Shen, Y., & Lu, S. (2026) · Frontiers in Nephrology · doi:10.3389/fneph.2026.1930977
Taskov, D., Ivanova, S., Antova, I., Topalov, N., Barkalova-Atanasova, A., Yordanov, N. Y., & Milanov, I. G. (2026) · Neurology International · doi:10.3390/neurolint18100198
罗奇, Wang, M., & Shen, Z. (2026) · Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology · doi:10.1111/jocd.71237
Association Between Systemic TNF-α Inhibitor Use and Risk of Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma
Hong, A. T., Lin, F., Xu, B. Y., & Weinreb, R. N. (2026) · American Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2026.10.009
Prognostic significance of nucleated red blood cells in trauma patients
Servais, J., Lecoq-Lafron, C., Floch, T., Leclercq-Rouget, M., Kanagaratnam, L., Seube-Remy, P.-A., Djerada, Z., & Legros, V. (2026) · Anaesthesia and Intensive Care · doi:10.1177/0310057x261472516
Metadata
- Authors
- Nguyen, T.-L., Collins, G. S., Spence, J., Daurès, J.-P., Devereaux, P. J., Landais, P., & Le Manach, Y.
- Affiliations
- Université de Montpellier (FR)
- Population Health Research Institute (CA)
- Venue
- BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Published
- 2017-04-28
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 78-78
- ISSN
- 1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5408373
- OpenAlex
- W2609185034
- Cited by
- 512
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2026: 65 · 2025: 79 · 2024: 76 · 2023: 76 · 2022: 86 · 2021: 61 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 5
- FWCI
- 12.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- BMC Medical Research Methodology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- None
- 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 matching, standardized mean difference, covariate balance, regression adjustment, confounding, nearest neighbor matching, treatment effect estimation, mean squared error
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Computer Simulation, Humans, Monte Carlo Method, Models, Statistical, Bias, Logistic Models, 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
