The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios, Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26:3078–3094

The propensity score which is the probability of exposure to a specific treatment conditional on observed variables. Conditioning on the propensity score results in unbiased estimation of the expected difference in observed responses to two treatments. In the medical literature, propensity score methods are frequently used for estimating odds ratios. The performance of propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios has not been studied. We performed a series of Monte Carlo simulations to assess the performance of propensity score matching, stratifying on the propensity score, and covariate adjustment using the propensity score to estimate marginal odds ratios. We assessed bias, precision, and mean-squared error (MSE) of the propensity score estimators, in addition to the proportion of bias eliminated due to conditioning on the propensity score. When the true marginal odds ratio was one, then matching on the propensity score and covariate adjustment using the propensity score resulted in unbiased estimation of the true treatment effect, whereas stratification on the propensity score resulted in minor bias in estimating the true marginal odds ratio. When the true marginal odds ratio ranged from 2 to 10, then matching on the propensity score resulted in the least bias, with a relative biases ranging from 2.3 to 13.3 per cent. Stratifying on the propensity score resulted in moderate bias, with relative biases ranging from 15.8 to 59.2 per cent. For both methods, relative bias was proportional to the true odds ratio. Finally, matching on the propensity score tended to result in estimators with the lowest MSE.

[1]  P. Austin,et al.  The use of the propensity score for estimating treatment effects: administrative versus clinical data , 2005, Statistics in medicine.

[2]  Peter C Austin,et al.  Conditioning on the propensity score can result in biased estimation of common measures of treatment effect: a Monte Carlo study , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[3]  S Greenland,et al.  Interpretation and choice of effect measures in epidemiologic analyses. , 1987, American journal of epidemiology.

[4]  Peter C Austin,et al.  A critical appraisal of propensity‐score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003 , 2008, Statistics in medicine.

[5]  James Stafford,et al.  The Performance of Two Data-Generation Processes for Data with Specified Marginal Treatment Odds Ratios , 2008, Commun. Stat. Simul. Comput..

[6]  Peter C Austin,et al.  A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[7]  Peter C Austin,et al.  The performance of different propensity-score methods for estimating relative risks. , 2008, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[8]  Peter C Austin,et al.  A comparison of propensity score methods: a case‐study estimating the effectiveness of post‐AMI statin use , 2006, Statistics in medicine.

[9]  D. Rubin,et al.  Reducing Bias in Observational Studies Using Subclassification on the Propensity Score , 1984 .

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