180
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In a study comparing the effects of two treatments, the propensity score is the probability of assignment to one treatment conditional on a subject's measured baseline covariates. Propensity-score matching is increasingly being used to estimate the effects of exposures using observational data. In the most common implementation of propensity-score matching, pairs of treated and untreated subjects are formed whose propensity scores differ by at most a pre-specified amount (the caliper width). There has been a little research into the optimal caliper width. We conducted an extensive series of Monte Carlo simulations to determine the optimal caliper width for estimating differences in means (for continuous outcomes) and risk differences (for binary outcomes). When estimating differences in means or risk differences, we recommend that researchers match on the logit of the propensity score using calipers of width equal to 0.2 of the standard deviation of the logit of the propensity score. When at least some of the covariates were continuous, then either this value, or one close to it, minimized the mean square error of the resultant estimated treatment effect. It also eliminated at least 98% of the bias in the crude estimator, and it resulted in confidence intervals with approximately the correct coverage rates. Furthermore, the empirical type I error rate was approximately correct. When all of the covariates were binary, then the choice of caliper width had a much smaller impact on the performance of estimation of risk differences and differences in means. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples

            The propensity score is a subject's probability of treatment, conditional on observed baseline covariates. Conditional on the true propensity score, treated and untreated subjects have similar distributions of observed baseline covariates. Propensity-score matching is a popular method of using the propensity score in the medical literature. Using this approach, matched sets of treated and untreated subjects with similar values of the propensity score are formed. Inferences about treatment effect made using propensity-score matching are valid only if, in the matched sample, treated and untreated subjects have similar distributions of measured baseline covariates. In this paper we discuss the following methods for assessing whether the propensity score model has been correctly specified: comparing means and prevalences of baseline characteristics using standardized differences; ratios comparing the variance of continuous covariates between treated and untreated subjects; comparison of higher order moments and interactions; five-number summaries; and graphical methods such as quantile–quantile plots, side-by-side boxplots, and non-parametric density plots for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups. We describe methods to determine the sampling distribution of the standardized difference when the true standardized difference is equal to zero, thereby allowing one to determine the range of standardized differences that are plausible with the propensity score model having been correctly specified. We highlight the limitations of some previously used methods for assessing the adequacy of the specification of the propensity-score model. In particular, methods based on comparing the distribution of the estimated propensity score between treated and untreated subjects are uninformative. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Nonparametric Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Under Exogeneity: A Review

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Pharm Stat
                pst
                Pharmaceutical Statistics
                John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
                1539-1604
                1539-1612
                March 2011
                27 April 2010
                : 10
                : 2
                : 150-161
                Affiliations
                [a ]simpleInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences Toronto, Ont., Canada
                [b ]simpleDalla Lana School of Public Health Sciences, University of Toronto Ont., Canada
                [c ]simpleDepartment of Health Management, Policy and Evaluation, University of Toronto Ont., Canada
                Author notes
                *Correspondence to: Peter C. Austin, Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, G1 06, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4N 3M5.
                Article
                10.1002/pst.433
                3120982
                20925139
                fc0ff21a-f0dc-44bf-ade9-d89261f46e12
                Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

                Re-use of this article is permitted in accordance with the Creative Commons Deed, Attribution 2.5, which does not permit commercial exploitation.

                History
                Categories
                Main Paper

                Biostatistics
                binary data,matching,observational study,monte carlo simulations,risk difference,propensity score,propensity-score matching,bias

                Comments

                Comment on this article