Cargando…
The number of strata in propensity score stratification for a binary outcome
INTRODUCTION: Non-interventional and other observational studies have become important in medical research. In such observational, non-randomized studies, groups usually differ in some baseline covariates. Propensity scores are increasingly being used in the statistical analysis of these studies. St...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Termedia Publishing House
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5949912/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29765459 http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/aoms.2016.61813 |
_version_ | 1783322797830832128 |
---|---|
author | Neuhäuser, Markus Thielmann, Matthias Ruxton, Graeme D. |
author_facet | Neuhäuser, Markus Thielmann, Matthias Ruxton, Graeme D. |
author_sort | Neuhäuser, Markus |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Non-interventional and other observational studies have become important in medical research. In such observational, non-randomized studies, groups usually differ in some baseline covariates. Propensity scores are increasingly being used in the statistical analysis of these studies. Stratification, also called subclassification, based on propensity scores is one of the possible methods. There is the quasi-standard of using five strata. In this paper we focus on a binary outcome and evaluate the above-mentioned standard of using five strata. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Bias and power for different numbers of strata are investigated with a simulation study. The methods are illustrated using data from a study where patients with diabetes mellitus and triple vessel disease undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery with and without previous percutaneous coronary intervention were compared. RESULTS: We show that more than five strata can be more powerful and give less biased results. However, using more than ten strata hardly gives any further benefit. CONCLUSIONS: When applying a stratification, more than five strata may be preferable, especially because of increased power. Our simulation study does not show a clear winner; hence a useful strategy could be to work with five as well as with ten strata. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5949912 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Termedia Publishing House |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-59499122018-05-14 The number of strata in propensity score stratification for a binary outcome Neuhäuser, Markus Thielmann, Matthias Ruxton, Graeme D. Arch Med Sci Biostatistics INTRODUCTION: Non-interventional and other observational studies have become important in medical research. In such observational, non-randomized studies, groups usually differ in some baseline covariates. Propensity scores are increasingly being used in the statistical analysis of these studies. Stratification, also called subclassification, based on propensity scores is one of the possible methods. There is the quasi-standard of using five strata. In this paper we focus on a binary outcome and evaluate the above-mentioned standard of using five strata. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Bias and power for different numbers of strata are investigated with a simulation study. The methods are illustrated using data from a study where patients with diabetes mellitus and triple vessel disease undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery with and without previous percutaneous coronary intervention were compared. RESULTS: We show that more than five strata can be more powerful and give less biased results. However, using more than ten strata hardly gives any further benefit. CONCLUSIONS: When applying a stratification, more than five strata may be preferable, especially because of increased power. Our simulation study does not show a clear winner; hence a useful strategy could be to work with five as well as with ten strata. Termedia Publishing House 2016-08-16 2018-04 /pmc/articles/PMC5949912/ /pubmed/29765459 http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/aoms.2016.61813 Text en Copyright: © 2016 Termedia & Banach http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license. |
spellingShingle | Biostatistics Neuhäuser, Markus Thielmann, Matthias Ruxton, Graeme D. The number of strata in propensity score stratification for a binary outcome |
title | The number of strata in propensity score stratification for a binary outcome |
title_full | The number of strata in propensity score stratification for a binary outcome |
title_fullStr | The number of strata in propensity score stratification for a binary outcome |
title_full_unstemmed | The number of strata in propensity score stratification for a binary outcome |
title_short | The number of strata in propensity score stratification for a binary outcome |
title_sort | number of strata in propensity score stratification for a binary outcome |
topic | Biostatistics |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5949912/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29765459 http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/aoms.2016.61813 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT neuhausermarkus thenumberofstratainpropensityscorestratificationforabinaryoutcome AT thielmannmatthias thenumberofstratainpropensityscorestratificationforabinaryoutcome AT ruxtongraemed thenumberofstratainpropensityscorestratificationforabinaryoutcome AT neuhausermarkus numberofstratainpropensityscorestratificationforabinaryoutcome AT thielmannmatthias numberofstratainpropensityscorestratificationforabinaryoutcome AT ruxtongraemed numberofstratainpropensityscorestratificationforabinaryoutcome |