The reverse propensity score to detect selection bias and correct for baseline imbalances

The propensity score has been proposed, and for the most part accepted, as a tool to allow for the evaluation of medical interventions in the presence of baseline imbalances arising in the context of observational studies. The lack of an analogous tool to allow for the evaluation of medical interventions in the presence of potentially systematic baseline imbalances in randomized trials has required the use of ad hoc methods. This, in turn, leads to challenges to the conclusions. For example, much of the controversy surrounding recommendations for or against mammography for some age groups stems from the fact that all the randomized trials to study mammography had baseline imbalances, to some extent, in important prognostic covariates. While some of these trials used cluster randomization, baseline imbalances are prevalent also in individually randomized trials. We provide a systematic approach for evaluating medical interventions in the presence of potentially systematic baseline imbalances in individually randomized trials with allocation concealment. Specifically, we define the reverse propensity score as the probability, conditional on all previous allocations and the allocation procedure (restrictions on the randomization), that a given patient will receive a given treatment. We demonstrate how the reverse propensity score allows for both detection of and correction for selection bias, or systematic baseline imbalances.

[1]  V W Berger,et al.  Detecting selection bias in randomized clinical trials. , 1999, Controlled clinical trials.

[2]  Anastasia Ivanova,et al.  Minimizing predictability while retaining balance through the use of less restrictive randomization procedures , 2003, Statistics in medicine.

[3]  Vance W Berger,et al.  When can a clinical trial be called 'randomized'? , 2003, Vaccine.

[4]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Post-randomisation exclusions: the intention to treat principle and excluding patients from analysis , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[5]  E. Graf The Propensity Score in the Analysis of Therapeutic Studies , 1997 .

[6]  A. Tsiatis,et al.  Utilizing Propensity Scores to Estimate Causal Treatment Effects with Censored Time‐Lagged Data , 2001, Biometrics.

[7]  J. L. Hodges,et al.  Design for the Control of Selection Bias , 1957 .

[8]  D P Byar,et al.  Using observational data from registries to compare treatments: the fallacy of omnimetrics. , 1984, Statistics in medicine.

[9]  Peter C Gøtzsche,et al.  Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? , 2000, The Lancet.

[10]  P. Canner,et al.  Covariate adjustment of treatment effects in clinical trials. , 1991, Controlled clinical trials.

[11]  M Schumacher,et al.  Analysis of randomized and nonrandomized patients in clinical trials using the comprehensive cohort follow-up study design. , 1992, Controlled clinical trials.

[12]  D. Rubin,et al.  The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects , 1983 .

[13]  D. Rubin,et al.  Principal Stratification in Causal Inference , 2002, Biometrics.

[14]  P. Rosenbaum,et al.  Invited commentary: propensity scores. , 1999, American journal of epidemiology.

[15]  R. Tarone The excess of patients with advanced breast cancer in young women screened with mammography in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study , 1995, Cancer.

[16]  Vance W Berger,et al.  Ensuring the comparability of comparison groups: is randomization enough? , 2004, Controlled clinical trials.

[17]  V. Berger,et al.  Randomization Technique, Allocation Concealment, Masking, And Susceptibility Of Trials To Selection Bias , 2003 .

[18]  S M Bird Monitoring clinical trials. Dissemination of decisions on interim analyses needs wider debate. , 2001, BMJ.

[19]  P. Meier,et al.  Choosing covariates in the analysis of clinical trials. , 1989, Controlled clinical trials.

[20]  P. Rosenbaum Conditional Permutation Tests and the Propensity Score in Observational Studies , 1984 .

[21]  Conditional Markov chain design for accrual clinical trials , 1983 .

[22]  V. Berger Selection Bias and Baseline Imbalances in Randomized Trials , 2004 .

[23]  J. Tukey Tightening the clinical trial. , 1993, Controlled clinical trials.