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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Karim, Mohammad Ehsanul, Pellegrini, Fabio, Platt, Robert W, Simoneau, Gabrielle, Rouette, Julie, de Moor, Carl
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