Cargando…
Three handy tips and a practical guide to improve your propensity score models
Real-world data are increasingly available to investigate ‘real-world’ safety and efficacy. However, since treatment in observational studies is not randomly allocated, confounding by indication may occur, in which differences in patient characteristics may influence both treatment choices and treat...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6525599/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31168417 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2019-000953 |
_version_ | 1783419752606072832 |
---|---|
author | Bergstra, Sytske Anne Sepriano, Alexandre Ramiro, Sofia Landewé, Robert |
author_facet | Bergstra, Sytske Anne Sepriano, Alexandre Ramiro, Sofia Landewé, Robert |
author_sort | Bergstra, Sytske Anne |
collection | PubMed |
description | Real-world data are increasingly available to investigate ‘real-world’ safety and efficacy. However, since treatment in observational studies is not randomly allocated, confounding by indication may occur, in which differences in patient characteristics may influence both treatment choices and treatment responses. A popular method to adjust for this type of bias is the use of propensity scores (PS). The PS is a score between 0 and 1 that reflects the likelihood per patient of receiving one of the treatment categories of interest conditional on a set of variables. At least in theory, in patients with similar PS, the treatment prescribed will be independent of these variables (pseudorandomisation). But researchers using PS sometimes fail to recognise important methodological flaws which can lead to spurious conclusions. These include perfect prediction of treatment allocation, untied observations and lack of generalisability due to oversimplification of complex clinical scenarios. In this viewpoint we will discuss the most commonly encountered flaws and provide a stepwise description on the estimation and use of PS, such that in future publications these flaws can be avoided. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6525599 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-65255992019-06-05 Three handy tips and a practical guide to improve your propensity score models Bergstra, Sytske Anne Sepriano, Alexandre Ramiro, Sofia Landewé, Robert RMD Open Epidemiology Real-world data are increasingly available to investigate ‘real-world’ safety and efficacy. However, since treatment in observational studies is not randomly allocated, confounding by indication may occur, in which differences in patient characteristics may influence both treatment choices and treatment responses. A popular method to adjust for this type of bias is the use of propensity scores (PS). The PS is a score between 0 and 1 that reflects the likelihood per patient of receiving one of the treatment categories of interest conditional on a set of variables. At least in theory, in patients with similar PS, the treatment prescribed will be independent of these variables (pseudorandomisation). But researchers using PS sometimes fail to recognise important methodological flaws which can lead to spurious conclusions. These include perfect prediction of treatment allocation, untied observations and lack of generalisability due to oversimplification of complex clinical scenarios. In this viewpoint we will discuss the most commonly encountered flaws and provide a stepwise description on the estimation and use of PS, such that in future publications these flaws can be avoided. BMJ Publishing Group 2019-05-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6525599/ /pubmed/31168417 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2019-000953 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Epidemiology Bergstra, Sytske Anne Sepriano, Alexandre Ramiro, Sofia Landewé, Robert Three handy tips and a practical guide to improve your propensity score models |
title | Three handy tips and a practical guide to improve your propensity score models |
title_full | Three handy tips and a practical guide to improve your propensity score models |
title_fullStr | Three handy tips and a practical guide to improve your propensity score models |
title_full_unstemmed | Three handy tips and a practical guide to improve your propensity score models |
title_short | Three handy tips and a practical guide to improve your propensity score models |
title_sort | three handy tips and a practical guide to improve your propensity score models |
topic | Epidemiology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6525599/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31168417 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2019-000953 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bergstrasytskeanne threehandytipsandapracticalguidetoimproveyourpropensityscoremodels AT seprianoalexandre threehandytipsandapracticalguidetoimproveyourpropensityscoremodels AT ramirosofia threehandytipsandapracticalguidetoimproveyourpropensityscoremodels AT landewerobert threehandytipsandapracticalguidetoimproveyourpropensityscoremodels |