The z-difference can be used to measure covariate balance in matched propensity score analyses

被引:44
作者
Kuss, Oliver [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Halle Wittenberg, Inst Med Epidemiol Biostat & Informat, Fac Med, D-06097 Halle, Saale, Germany
关键词
Propensity score; Propensity score matching; Covariate balance; Standardized difference; z-Difference; Q-Q plot;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.06.001
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Objectives: The propensity score (PS) method is increasingly used to assess treatment effects in nonrandomized trials. Although there are several methods to use the PS for analysis, matching treated and untreated patients by the PS is recommended by most researchers among other reasons because this allows assessing covariate balance before and after matching. Although the standardized difference is commonly applied to compute a measure of balance, it has two deficiencies: its distribution depends on the sample size and one cannot compare standardized differences for baseline covariates on different scales, that is, continuous, binary, ordinal, or nominal covariates. Study Design and Setting: We introduce the z-difference to measure covariate balance in matched PS analyses and illustrate it by a recent matched PS analysis from cardiac surgery. Results: The z-difference is simple to calculate, can be used with second moments for continuous covariates, and in most cases can also be computed from published data. Its full advantage emerges after displaying z-differences in a Q-Q plot, which allows balance comparisons with respect to (1) a randomized trial and (2) a perfectly matched PS analysis in the sense of Rubin and Thomas. Conclusion: The z-difference can be used to measure covariate balance in matched PS analyses. (c) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1302 / 1307
页数:6
相关论文
共 22 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], THEORY POINT ESTIMAT
[2]   Propensity-score matching in the cardiovascular surgery literature from 2004 to 2006: A systematic review and suggestions for improvement [J].
Austin, Peter C. .
JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2007, 134 (05) :1128-U7
[3]   An Introduction to Propensity Score Methods for Reducing the Effects of Confounding in Observational Studies [J].
Austin, Peter C. .
MULTIVARIATE BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH, 2011, 46 (03) :399-424
[4]   The Relative Ability of Different Propensity Score Methods to Balance Measured Covariates Between Treated and Untreated Subjects in Observational Studies [J].
Austin, Peter C. .
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2009, 29 (06) :661-677
[5]   Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples [J].
Austin, Peter C. .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2009, 28 (25) :3083-3107
[6]   Using the Standardized Difference to Compare the Prevalence of a Binary Variable Between Two Groups in Observational Research [J].
Austin, Peter C. .
COMMUNICATIONS IN STATISTICS-SIMULATION AND COMPUTATION, 2009, 38 (06) :1228-1234
[7]   Measuring balance and model selection in propensity score methods [J].
Belitser, Svetlana V. ;
Martens, Edwin P. ;
Pestman, Wiebe R. ;
Groenwold, Rolf H. H. ;
de Boer, Anthonius ;
Klungel, Olaf H. .
PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, 2011, 20 (11) :1115-1129
[8]   Clampless Off-Pump Versus Conventional Coronary Artery Revascularization A Propensity Score Analysis of 788 Patients [J].
Boergermann, Jochen ;
Hakim, Kavous ;
Renner, Andre ;
Parsa, Amin ;
Aboud, Anas ;
Becker, Tobias ;
Masshoff, Marc ;
Zittermann, Armin ;
Gummert, Jan Fritz ;
Kuss, Oliver .
CIRCULATION, 2012, 126 (11) :S176-S182
[9]   Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders [J].
Cepeda, MS ;
Boston, R ;
Farrar, JT ;
Strom, BL .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2003, 158 (03) :280-287
[10]  
COOK EF, 1989, J CLIN EPIDEMIOL, V42, P317