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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Neuhäuser, Markus, Thielmann, Matthias, Ruxton, Graeme D.
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