Evaluating treatment effectiveness in patient subgroups: a comparison of propensity score methods with an automated matching approach

Radice Rosalba, Ramsahai Roland, Grieve Richard, Noemi Kreif, Sadique Zia and Sekhon Jasjeet S.
Additional contact information
Radice Rosalba: CLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
Ramsahai Roland: Centre for Statistical Methodology, LSHTM
Grieve Richard: Centre for Statistical Methodology, LSHTM
Sadique Zia: Centre for Statistical Methodology, LSHTM
Sekhon Jasjeet S.: University of California, Berkeley

The International Journal of Biostatistics, 2012, vol. 8, issue 1, 45

Abstract: Propensity score (Pscore) matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) can remove bias due to observed confounders, if the Pscore is correctly specified. Genetic Matching (GenMatch) matches on the Pscore and individual covariates using an automated search algorithm to balance covariates. This paper compares common ways of implementing Pscore matching and IPTW, with Genmatch for balancing time-constant baseline covariates}. The methods are considered when estimates of treatment effectiveness are required for patient subgroups, and the treatment allocation process differs by subgroup. We apply these methods in a prospective cohort study that estimates the effectiveness of Drotrecogin alfa activated, for subgroups of patients with severe sepsis. In a simulation study we compare the methods when the Pscore is correctly specified, and then misspecified by ignoring the subgroup-specific treatment allocation. The simulations also consider poor overlap in baseline covariates, and different sample sizes. In the case study, GenMatch reports better covariate balance than IPTW or Pscore matching. In the simulations with correctly specified Pscores, good overlap and reasonable sample sizes, all methods report minimal bias. When the Pscore is misspecified, GenMatch reports the least imbalance and bias. With small sample sizes, IPTW is the most efficient approach, but all methods report relatively high bias of treatment effects. This study shows that overall GenMatch achieves the best covariate balance for each subgroup, and is more robust to Pscore misspecification than common alternative Pscore approaches.

Keywords: confounding; observational studies; matching; propensity score methods; subgroup analysis (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2012
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1515/1557-4679.1382 (text/html)
For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bpj:ijbist:v:8:y:2012:i:1:n:25

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.degruyter.com/journal/key/ijb/html

DOI: 10.1515/1557-4679.1382

Access Statistics for this article

The International Journal of Biostatistics is currently edited by Antoine Chambaz, Alan E. Hubbard and Mark J. van der Laan

More articles in The International Journal of Biostatistics from De Gruyter
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Peter Golla ().