Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group.

In observational studies, investigators have no control over the treatment assignment. The treated and non-treated (that is, control) groups may have large differences on their observed covariates, and these differences can lead to biased estimates of treatment effects. Even traditional covariance analysis adjustments may be inadequate to eliminate this bias. The propensity score, defined as the conditional probability of being treated given the covariates, can be used to balance the covariates in the two groups, and therefore reduce this bias. In order to estimate the propensity score, one must model the distribution of the treatment indicator variable given the observed covariates. Once estimated the propensity score can be used to reduce bias through matching, stratification (subclassification), regression adjustment, or some combination of all three. In this tutorial we discuss the uses of propensity score methods for bias reduction, give references to the literature and illustrate the uses through applied examples.

[1]  D B Rubin,et al.  Matching using estimated propensity scores: relating theory to practice. , 1996, Biometrics.

[2]  E. Lieberman,et al.  A clinical trial of active management of labor. , 1995, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  M. Fine,et al.  Propensity score adjustment for pretreatment differences between hospitalized and ambulatory patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Pneumonia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT) Investigators. , 1995, Medical care.

[4]  Xiao-Li Meng,et al.  Maximum likelihood estimation via the ECM algorithm: A general framework , 1993 .

[5]  Roderick J. A. Little,et al.  Projecting From Advance Data Using Propensity Modeling: An Application to Income and Tax Statistics , 1992 .

[6]  P W Lavori,et al.  Clinical trials in psychiatry: should protocol deviation censor patient data? , 1992, Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

[7]  D B Rubin,et al.  Practical implications of modes of statistical inference for causal effects and the critical role of the assignment mechanism. , 1991, Biometrics.

[8]  E. Cook,et al.  Outcomes in patients with myocardial infarction who are initially admitted to stepdown units: data from the Multicenter Chest Pain Study. , 1990, The American journal of medicine.

[9]  Mark R. Segal,et al.  Empirical Comparison of Approaches to Forming Strata: Using Classification Trees to Adjust for Covariates , 1989 .

[10]  B. Gersh,et al.  Improved survival of surgically treated patients with triple vessel coronary artery disease and severe angina pectoris. A report from the Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS) registry. , 1989, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[11]  P. Lavori,et al.  Improving the aggregate performance of psychiatric diagnostic methods when not all subjects receive the standard test. , 1988, Statistics in medicine.

[12]  A Ciampi,et al.  RECPAM: a computer program for recursive partition and amalgamation for censored survival data and other situations frequently occurring in biostatistics. I. Methods and program features. , 1988, Computer methods and programs in biomedicine.

[13]  E F Cook,et al.  Asymmetric stratification. An outline for an efficient method for controlling confounding in cohort studies. , 1988, American journal of epidemiology.

[14]  P. Lavori,et al.  Improving the validity of FH-RDC diagnosis of major affective disorder in uninterviewed relatives in family studies: a model based approach. , 1988, Journal of Psychiatric Research.

[15]  B. Gersh,et al.  Time to first new myocardial infarction in patients with mild angina and three-vessel disease comparing medicine and early surgery: a CASS registry study of survival. Coronary Artery Surgery Study. , 1987, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[16]  Sarah Fenstermaker Berk,et al.  What a Difference a Day Makes: An Empirical Study of the Impact of Shelters for Battered Women , 1986 .

[17]  A. Jaffe,et al.  Digoxin therapy and mortality after myocardial infarction. Experience in the MILIS Study. , 1986, The New England journal of medicine.

[18]  Richard A. Berk,et al.  Does arrest really deter wife battery? An effort to replicate the findings of the Minneapolis Spouse Abuse Experiment. , 1985 .

[19]  J. Coleman,et al.  Achievement Growth in Public and Catholic Schools. , 1985 .

[20]  D. Rubin,et al.  Constructing a Control Group Using Multivariate Matched Sampling Methods That Incorporate the Propensity Score , 1985 .

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

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

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

[24]  D. Rubin Bias Reduction Using Mahalanobis-Metric Matching , 1980 .

[25]  C. Hobel,et al.  Prenatal and intrapartum high-risk screening. II. Risk factors reassessed. , 1979, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[26]  D. Rubin,et al.  Using Multivariate Matched Sampling and Regression Adjustment to Control Bias in Observational Studies , 1978 .

[27]  D. Rubin,et al.  Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM - algorithm plus discussions on the paper , 1977 .

[28]  R. G. Carpenter,et al.  Matching when covariables are normally distributed , 1977 .

[29]  W. G. Cochran,et al.  Controlling Bias in Observational Studies: A Review. , 1974 .

[30]  W. G. Cochran The effectiveness of adjustment by subclassification in removing bias in observational studies. , 1968, Biometrics.

[31]  W. G. Cochran The Planning of Observational Studies of Human Populations , 1965 .