Choosing propensity score matching over regression adjustment for causal inference: when, why and how it makes sense

References

• Baser O. Too much ado about propensity score models? Comparing methods of propensity score matching. Value in Health 2006; 9: 377–385
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70: 41
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cochran WG, Rubin DB. Controlling bias in observational studies: a review. Sankhya 1973; 35: 417–446
   Google Scholar
• Rubin DB. Using propensity scores to help design observational studies: application to the tobacco litigation. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology 2001; 2: 169–188
   Google Scholar
• Rubin DB. Inference and missing data. Biometrika 1976; 63: 581
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubin DB. The American College of Physicians. Estimating Causal Effects from Large Data Sets Using Propensity Scores. Philadelphia, PA 1997
   Google Scholar
• Rubin DB, William G. Cochran's Impact on Statistics. Cochran's contributions to the design, analysis, and evaluation of observational studies. In:, SRS Rao, J Sedransk, W. G. John Wiley, New York, NY 1984; 37–69
   Google Scholar
• Stürmer T, Joshi M, Glynn RJ, et al. A review of the application of propensity score methods yielded increasing use, advantages in specific settings, but not substantially different estimates compared with conventional multivariable methods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2006; 59: 437e1–437e24
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glynn RJ, Schneeweiss S, Wang PS, et al. Selective prescribing led to overestimation of the benefits of lipid-lowering drugs. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2006; 59: 819–828
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gu XS, Rosenbaum PR. Comparison of multivariate matching methods: structures, distances, and algorithms. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 1993; 2: 405–420
   Google Scholar
• Harrell FE, Jr, Lee KL, Mark DB. Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Statistics in Medicine 1996; 15: 361–387
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cepeda MS. Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders. American Journal of Epidemiology 2003; 158: 280–287
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King G, Zeng L. Logistic regression in rare events data. Political Analysis 2001; 9: 137.
   Google Scholar
• Cochran WG. Analysis of covariance: its nature and uses. Biometrics 1957; 13: 261–281
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carpenter RG. Matching when covariables are normally distributed. Biometrika 1977; 64: 299
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubin DB. Assignment to treatment group on the basis of a covariate. Journal of Educational Statistics 1977; 2: 1–26
   Google Scholar
• Rubin DB. Using multivariate matched sampling and regression adjustment to control bias in observational studies. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1979; 74: 318–328
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weitzen S, Lapane KL, Toledano AY, et al. Principles for modeling propensity scores in medical research: a systematic literature review. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 2004; 13: 841–853
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah BR, Laupacis A, Hux JE, et al. Propensity score methods gave similar results to traditional regression modeling in observational studies: a systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2005; 58: 550–559
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fu AZ, Dow WH, Liu GG. Propensity score and difference-in-difference methods: a study of second-generation antidepressant use in patients with bipolar disorder. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology 2007; 7: 23–38
   Google Scholar
• Austin PC, Mamdani MM. A comparison of propensity score methods: a case-study estimating the effectiveness of post-AMI statin use. Statistics in Medicine 2006; 25: 2084–2106
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Austin PC. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios. Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26: 3078–3094.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wooldridge J. Inverse Probability Weighted Estimation for General Missing Data Problems. East Lansing. MI: Michigan State University. 2006
   Google Scholar
• Wooldridge JM. Introductory Econometrics: a modern approach, 3rd edn. Thomson/South-Western, Mason, OH 2006
   Google Scholar
• Wooldridge JM. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 2002
   Google Scholar
• D'Agostino RB, Belanger A, D'Agostino RB, Jr. A suggestion for using powerful and informative tests of normality. The American Statistician 1990; 44: 316–321
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Royston B. sg3.5: comment on sg3.4 and an improved D'Agostino test. Stata Technical Bulletin 1991; 3: 23–24
   Google Scholar
• Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, et al. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1996; 49: 1373–1379
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoel PG. Introduction to Mathematical Statistics. J. Wiley, New York, NY 1947
   Google Scholar
• Pagano M, Gauvreau K. Principles of Biostatistics. Duxbury Press, Pacific Grove, CA 2000
   Google Scholar
• Baser O. Propensity score matching with limited overlap. Economics Bulletin 2007; 9: 1–8
   Google Scholar
• Crump RK, Hotz VJ, Imbens GW, et al. Moving the Goalposts: addressing limited overlap in the estimation of average treatment effects by changing the estimand. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA 2006
   Google Scholar
• Baser O, Crown WH, Pollicino C. Guidelines for selecting among different types of bootstraps. Current Medical Research and Opinion 2006; 22: 799–808
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Normand SLT, Landrum MB, Guadagnoli E, et al. Validating recommendations for coronary angiography following acute myocardial infarction in the elderly: a matched analysis using propensity scores. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2001; 54: 387–398.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manning WG, Mullahy J. Estimating log models: to transform or not to transform?. Journal of Health Economics 2001; 20: 461–494.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook EF, Goldman L. Performance of tests of significance based on stratification by a multivariate confounder score or by a propensity score. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1989; 42: 317–324
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stukel TA, Fisher ES, Wennberg DE, et al. Analysis of observational studies in the presence of treatment selection bias: effects of invasive cardiac management on AMI survival using propensity score and instrumental variable methods. Journal of the American Medical Association 2007; 297: 278
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum PR. Observational Studies. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY 2002
   Google Scholar
• Newhouse JP, McClellan M. Econometrics in outcomes research: the use of instrumental variables. Annual Review of Public Health 1998; 19: 17–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar