Cargando…
The use and quality of reporting of propensity score methods in multiple sclerosis literature: A review
BACKGROUND: Propensity score (PS) analyses are increasingly used in multiple sclerosis (MS) research, largely owing to the greater availability of large observational cohorts and registry databases. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use and quality of reporting of PS methods in the recent MS literature. ME...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9260477/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33179573 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1352458520972557 |
_version_ | 1784742043000504320 |
---|---|
author | Karim, Mohammad Ehsanul Pellegrini, Fabio Platt, Robert W Simoneau, Gabrielle Rouette, Julie de Moor, Carl |
author_facet | Karim, Mohammad Ehsanul Pellegrini, Fabio Platt, Robert W Simoneau, Gabrielle Rouette, Julie de Moor, Carl |
author_sort | Karim, Mohammad Ehsanul |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Propensity score (PS) analyses are increasingly used in multiple sclerosis (MS) research, largely owing to the greater availability of large observational cohorts and registry databases. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use and quality of reporting of PS methods in the recent MS literature. METHODS: We searched the PubMed database for articles published between January 2013 and July 2019. We restricted the search to comparative effectiveness studies of two disease-modifying therapies. RESULTS: Thirty-nine studies were included in the review, with most studies (62%) published within the past 3 years. All studies reported the list of covariates used for the PS model, but only 21% of studies mentioned how those covariates were selected. Most studies used PS matching (72%), followed by PS adjustment (18%), weighting (15%), and stratification (3%), with some overlap. Most studies using matching or weighting reported checking post-PS covariate imbalance (91%), although about 45% of these studies relied on p values from various statistical tests. Only 25% of studies using matching reported calculating robust standard errors for the PS analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of reporting of PS methods in the MS literature is sub-optimal in general, and in some cases, inappropriate methods are used. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9260477 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-92604772022-07-08 The use and quality of reporting of propensity score methods in multiple sclerosis literature: A review Karim, Mohammad Ehsanul Pellegrini, Fabio Platt, Robert W Simoneau, Gabrielle Rouette, Julie de Moor, Carl Mult Scler Topical Review BACKGROUND: Propensity score (PS) analyses are increasingly used in multiple sclerosis (MS) research, largely owing to the greater availability of large observational cohorts and registry databases. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use and quality of reporting of PS methods in the recent MS literature. METHODS: We searched the PubMed database for articles published between January 2013 and July 2019. We restricted the search to comparative effectiveness studies of two disease-modifying therapies. RESULTS: Thirty-nine studies were included in the review, with most studies (62%) published within the past 3 years. All studies reported the list of covariates used for the PS model, but only 21% of studies mentioned how those covariates were selected. Most studies used PS matching (72%), followed by PS adjustment (18%), weighting (15%), and stratification (3%), with some overlap. Most studies using matching or weighting reported checking post-PS covariate imbalance (91%), although about 45% of these studies relied on p values from various statistical tests. Only 25% of studies using matching reported calculating robust standard errors for the PS analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of reporting of PS methods in the MS literature is sub-optimal in general, and in some cases, inappropriate methods are used. SAGE Publications 2020-11-12 2022-08 /pmc/articles/PMC9260477/ /pubmed/33179573 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1352458520972557 Text en © The Author(s), 2020 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). |
spellingShingle | Topical Review Karim, Mohammad Ehsanul Pellegrini, Fabio Platt, Robert W Simoneau, Gabrielle Rouette, Julie de Moor, Carl The use and quality of reporting of propensity score methods in multiple sclerosis literature: A review |
title | The use and quality of reporting of propensity score methods in
multiple sclerosis literature: A review |
title_full | The use and quality of reporting of propensity score methods in
multiple sclerosis literature: A review |
title_fullStr | The use and quality of reporting of propensity score methods in
multiple sclerosis literature: A review |
title_full_unstemmed | The use and quality of reporting of propensity score methods in
multiple sclerosis literature: A review |
title_short | The use and quality of reporting of propensity score methods in
multiple sclerosis literature: A review |
title_sort | use and quality of reporting of propensity score methods in
multiple sclerosis literature: a review |
topic | Topical Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9260477/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33179573 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1352458520972557 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT karimmohammadehsanul theuseandqualityofreportingofpropensityscoremethodsinmultiplesclerosisliteratureareview AT pellegrinifabio theuseandqualityofreportingofpropensityscoremethodsinmultiplesclerosisliteratureareview AT plattrobertw theuseandqualityofreportingofpropensityscoremethodsinmultiplesclerosisliteratureareview AT simoneaugabrielle theuseandqualityofreportingofpropensityscoremethodsinmultiplesclerosisliteratureareview AT rouettejulie theuseandqualityofreportingofpropensityscoremethodsinmultiplesclerosisliteratureareview AT demoorcarl theuseandqualityofreportingofpropensityscoremethodsinmultiplesclerosisliteratureareview AT karimmohammadehsanul useandqualityofreportingofpropensityscoremethodsinmultiplesclerosisliteratureareview AT pellegrinifabio useandqualityofreportingofpropensityscoremethodsinmultiplesclerosisliteratureareview AT plattrobertw useandqualityofreportingofpropensityscoremethodsinmultiplesclerosisliteratureareview AT simoneaugabrielle useandqualityofreportingofpropensityscoremethodsinmultiplesclerosisliteratureareview AT rouettejulie useandqualityofreportingofpropensityscoremethodsinmultiplesclerosisliteratureareview AT demoorcarl useandqualityofreportingofpropensityscoremethodsinmultiplesclerosisliteratureareview |