Comparison of alternative approaches to trim subjects in the tails of the propensity score distribution

In nonexperimental comparative effectiveness research, restricting analysis to subjects with better overlap of covariate distributions, hence greater treatment equipoise, helps balance the groups compared and can improve validity. Three alternative approaches, derived from different perspectives, implement restriction by trimming observations in the tails of the propensity score (PS). Across approaches, we compared the relationships between the overlap in treatment‐specific PS distributions and the size of the balanced study population after trimming.

[1]  J. Zubizarreta,et al.  Evaluation of subset matching methods and forms of covariate balance , 2016, Statistics in medicine.

[2]  David B Richardson,et al.  The Active Comparator, New User Study Design in Pharmacoepidemiology: Historical Foundations and Contemporary Application , 2015, Current Epidemiology Reports.

[3]  Kari Lock Morgan,et al.  Balancing Covariates via Propensity Score Weighting , 2014, 1609.07494.

[4]  Paul M Ridker,et al.  A trial-based approach to statin guidelines. , 2013, JAMA.

[5]  Neil Pearce,et al.  Commentary: Representativeness is usually not necessary and often should be avoided. , 2013, International journal of epidemiology.

[6]  J. Gallacher,et al.  Why representativeness should be avoided. , 2013, International journal of epidemiology.

[7]  Richard Platt,et al.  A tool for assessing the feasibility of comparative effectiveness research , 2013 .

[8]  R. Collins,et al.  The effects of lowering LDL cholesterol with statin therapy in people at low risk of vascular disease: meta-analysis of individual data from 27 randomised trials , 2012, The Lancet.

[9]  Paul R. Rosenbaum,et al.  Optimal Matching of an Optimally Chosen Subset in Observational Studies , 2012 .

[10]  G. King,et al.  Multivariate Matching Methods That Are Monotonic Imbalance Bounding , 2011 .

[11]  Ryan B. Longmore,et al.  Clinical Referral Patterns for Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Carotid Endarterectomy: Results From the Carotid Artery Revascularization and Endarterectomy Registry , 2011, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

[12]  J. Avorn,et al.  Treatment effects in the presence of unmeasured confounding: dealing with observations in the tails of the propensity score distribution--a simulation study. , 2010, American journal of epidemiology.

[13]  Donald B Rubin,et al.  On the limitations of comparative effectiveness research , 2010, Statistics in medicine.

[14]  Richard K. Crump,et al.  Dealing with limited overlap in estimation of average treatment effects , 2009 .

[15]  Mark Lunt,et al.  Different Methods of Balancing Covariates Leading to Different Effect Estimates in the Presence of Effect Modification , 2009, American journal of epidemiology.

[16]  Richard Emsley,et al.  Implementing Double-robust Estimators of Causal Effects , 2008 .

[17]  D. Rubin.  For objective causal inference, design trumps analysis , 2008, 0811.1640.

[18]  J. Avorn,et al.  Increasing Levels of Restriction in Pharmacoepidemiologic Database Studies of Elderly and Comparison With Randomized Trial Results , 2007, Medical care.

[19]  D. Rubin.  The design versus the analysis of observational studies for causal effects: parallels with the design of randomized trials , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[20]  Til Stürmer,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. , 2006, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[21]  J. Robins,et al.  Results of multivariable logistic regression, propensity matching, propensity adjustment, and propensity-based weighting under conditions of nonuniform effect. , 2006, American journal of epidemiology.

[22]  Marco Caliendo,et al.  Some Practical Guidance for the Implementation of Propensity Score Matching , 2005, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[23]  John Robbins,et al.  National cross sectional survey to determine whether the decision to delivery interval is critical in emergency caesarean section , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[24]  Michael Lechner,et al.  Some practical issues in the evaluation of heterogeneous labour market programmes by matching methods , 2002 .

[25]  G. Imbens,et al.  Estimation of Causal Effects using Propensity Score Weighting: An Application to Data on Right Heart Catheterization , 2001, Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology.

[26]  Jeffrey A. Smith,et al.  Does Matching Overcome Lalonde's Critique of Nonexperimental Estimators? , 2000 .

[27]  M. Lechner.  A Note on the Common Support Problem in Applied Evaluation Studies , 2000 .

[28]  Petra E. Todd,et al.  Matching As An Econometric Evaluation Estimator: Evidence from Evaluating a Job Training Programme , 1997 .

[29]  L. Goldman,et al.  The effectiveness of right heart catheterization in the initial care of critically ill patients. SUPPORT Investigators. , 1996, JAMA.

[30]  Sander Greenland,et al.  Theoretical Epidemiology: Principles of Occurrence Research in Medicine , 1986 .

[31]  M. Graffar.  [Modern epidemiology]. , 1971, Bruxelles medical.