SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • 1
    Cook TD, DeMets DL. Introduction to Statistical Methods for Clinical Trials. Chapman & Hall/CRC: Boca Raton, FL, 2008.
  • 2
    Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70:4155.
  • 3
    Weitzen S, Lapane KL, Toledano AY, Hume AL, Mor V. Principles for modeling propensity scores in medical research: a systematic literature review. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 2004; 13(12):841853.
  • 4
    Austin PC. A critical appraisal of propensity-score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003. Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27(12):20372049.
  • 5
    Austin PC, Manca A, Zwarenstein M, Juurlink DN, Stanbrook MB. A substantial and confusing variation exists in handling of baseline covariates in randomized controlled trials: a review of trials published in leading medical journals. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2010; 63(2):142153.
  • 6
    Austin PC, Grootendorst P, Normand SL, Anderson GM. Conditioning on the propensity score can result in biased estimation of common measures of treatment effect: a Monte Carlo study. Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26(4):754768.
  • 7
    Austin PC. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios. Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26(16):30783094.
  • 8
    Austin PC. The performance of different propensity-score methods for estimating relative risks. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2008; 61(6):537545.
  • 9
    Austin PC. The performance of different propensity-score methods for estimating differences in proportions (risk differences or absolute risk reductions) in observational studies. Statistics in Medicine 2010; 29(20):21372148.
  • 10
    Greenland S. Interpretation and choice of effect measures in epidemiologic analyses. American Journal of Epidemiology 1987; 125(5):761768.
  • 11
    Gail MH, Wieand S, Piantadosi S. Biased estimates of treatment effect in randomized experiments with nonlinear regressions and omitted covariates. Biometrika 1984; 7:431444.
  • 12
    Rosenbaum PR. Propensity score. In Encyclopedia of Biostatistics, Armitage P, Colton T (eds). John Wiley & Sons: Boston, 2005; 42674272.
  • 13
    Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician 1985; 39:3338.
  • 14
    Austin PC. Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2010; 10:150161.
  • 15
    Lin DY, Wei LJ. The robust inference for the proportional hazards model. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1989; 84:10741078.
  • 16
    Cummings P, McKnight B, Greenland S. Matched cohort methods for injury research. Epidemiologic Reviews 2003; 25:4350.
  • 17
    Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1984; 79:516524.
  • 18
    Cochran WG. The effectiveness of adjustment by subclassification in removing bias in observational studies. Biometrics 1968; 24(2):295313.
  • 19
    Lunceford JK, Davidian M. Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of causal treatment effects: a comparative study. Statistics in Medicine 2004; 23(19):29372960.
  • 20
    Morgan SL, Todd JL. A diagnostic routine for the detection of consequential heterogeneity of causal effects. Sociological Methodology 2008; 38:231281.
  • 21
    Joffe MM, Ten Have TR, Feldman HI, Kimmel SE. Model selection, confounder control, and marginal structural models: Review and new applications. The American Statistician 2004; 58:272279.
  • 22
    Bender R, Augustin T, Blettner M. Generating survival times to simulate Cox proportional hazards models. Statistics in Medicine 2005; 24(11):17131723.
  • 23
    Austin PC. A data-generation process for data with specified risk differences or numbers needed to treat. Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation 2010; 39:563577. DOI: 10.1080/03610910903528301.
  • 24
    Austin PC, Stafford J. The performance of two data-generation processes for data with specified marginal treatment odds ratios. Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation 2008; 37:10391051.
  • 25
    Austin PC, Grootendorst P, Anderson GM. A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study. Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26(4):734753.
  • 26
    Neuhaus JM, Kalbfleish JD, Hauck WW. A comparison of cluster-specific and population-averaged approaches for analyzing correlated binary data. International Statistical Review 1991; 59(1):2535.
  • 27
    Pocock SJ, Assmann SE, Enos LE, Kasten LE. Subgroup analysis, covariate adjustment and baseline comparisons in clinical trial reporting: current practice and problems. Statistics in Medicine 2002; 21(19):29172930.
  • 28
    Austin PC. Type I error rates, coverage of confidence intervals, and variance estimation in propensity-score matched analyses. International Journal of Biostatistics 2009; 5: Article 13. DOI: 10.2202/1557-4679.1146.
  • 29
    Cole SR, Hernan MA. Adjusted survival curves with inverse probability weights. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine 2004; 75:4549.
  • 30
    Xie J, Liu C. Adjusted Kaplan-Meier estimator and log-rank test with inverse probability of treatment weighting for survival data. Statistics in Medicine 2005; 24(20):30893110.
  • 31
    Lee BK, Lessler J, Stuart EA. Improving propensity score weighting using machine learning. Statistics in Medicine 2010; 29(3):337346.
  • 32
    Setoguchi S, Schneeweiss S, Brookhart MA, Glynn RJ, Cook EF. Evaluating uses of data mining techniques in propensity score estimation: a simulation study. Pharmacoepidemiolgy and Drug Safety 2008; 17(6):546555.
  • 33
    Austin PC. Statistical criteria for selecting the optimal number of untreated subjects matched to each treated subject when using many-to-one matching on the propensity score. American Journal of Epidemiology 2010; 172(9):10921097.
  • 34
    Austin PC. Some methods of propensity-score matching had superior performance to others: results of an empirical investigation and Monte Carlo simulations. Biometrical Journal 2009; 51(1):171184.
  • 35
    Rosenbaum PR. Observational Studies. Springer-Verlag: New York, NY, 2002.
  • 36
    Austin PC. Comparing paired vs non-paired statistical methods of analyses when making inferences about absolute risk reductions in propensity-score matched samples. Statistics in Medicine 2011; 30(11):12921301.
  • 37
    Gayat E, Resche-Rigon M, Mary JY, Porcher R. Propensity score applied to survival data analysis through proportional hazards models: a Monte Carlo study. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2012; 11(3):222229, DOI: 10.1002/pst.537.