Cited by 5,478Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods and InferenceOptimal Experimental Design Methods

Matching Methods for Causal Inference: A Review and a Look Forward

Open access
Stuart, Elizabeth A.·2010·Statistical Science

Abstract

When estimating causal effects using observational data, it is desirable to replicate a randomized experiment as closely as possible by obtaining treated and control groups with similar covariate distributions. This goal can often be achieved by choosing well-matched samples of the original treated and control groups, thereby reducing bias due to the covariates. Since the 1970's, work on matching methods has examined how to best choose treated and control subjects for comparison. Matching methods are gaining popularity in fields such as economics, epidemiology, medicine, and political science. However, until now the literature and related advice has been scattered across disciplines. Researchers who are interested in using matching methods-or developing methods related to matching-do not have a single place to turn to learn about past and current research. This paper provides a structure for thinking about matching methods and guidance on their use, coalescing the existing research (both old and new) and providing a summary of where the literature on matching methods is now and where it should be headed.

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 · 10.1214/09-sts313

Cites

157 of 157 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: 6

  1. Czajka JC Hirabayashi S Little R Rubin DB 1992 Projecting from advance data using propensity modeling Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 10 117 131
  2. Imai K King G Stuart EA 2008 Misunderstandings among experimentalists and observationalists in causal inference Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A 171 2 481 502
  3. Potter FJ 1993 The effect of weight trimming on nonlinear survey estimates Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods of American Statistical Association San Francisco, CA American Statistical Association
  4. Rubin DB 2006 Matched Sampling for Causal Inference Cambridge University Press Cambridge, England
  5. Scharfstein DO Rotnitzky A Robins JM 1999 Adjusting for non-ignorable drop-out using semiparametric non-response models Journal of the American Statistical Association 94 1096 1120
  6. Snedecor GW Cochran WG 1980 Statistical Methods Iowa State University Press Ames, Iowa 7

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stuart, E. A.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Stuart, Elizabeth A.
Venue
Statistical Science
Published
2010-02-01
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
1-21
ISSN
  • 0883-4237 (ISSN-L)
  • 2168-8745
OpenAlex
W2155163959
Cited by
5,478
References
157
Citations by year
2026: 516 · 2025: 559 · 2024: 504 · 2023: 471 · 2022: 483 · 2021: 544 · 2020: 455 · 2019: 410 · 2018: 351 · 2017: 267 · 2016: 248 · 2015: 216 · 2014: 199 · 2013: 126 · 2012: 77
FWCI
66.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Statistical Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Project Euclid (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Harvard University
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health (K25MH083846)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Optimal Experimental Design Methods
Keywords
matching methods, causal inference, observational data, covariate balance, propensity score matching, causal effect estimation, bias mitigation

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