Application and comparison of generalized propensity score matching versus pairwise propensity score matching
Abstract
Aim: A comparison of conventional pairwise propensity score matching (PSM) and generalized PSM method was applied to the comparative effectiveness of multiple treatment options for lung cancer. Materials & methods: Deidentified data were analyzed. Covariate balances between compared treatments were assessed before and after PSM. Cox proportional hazards regression compared overall survival after PSM. Results & conclusion: The generalized PSM analyses were able to retain 61.2% of patients, while the conventional PSM analyses were able to match from 24.1 to 77.1% of patients from each treatment comparison. The generalized PSM achieved statistical significance (p < 0.05) in 8/10 comparisons, whereas conventional pairwise PSM achieved 1/10. The noted differences arose from different matched patient samples and the size of the samples.
Formats available
You can view the full content in the following formats:
Supplementary Material
File (suppl_materials.docx)
- Download
- 766.04 KB
References
1.
Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70(1), 41–55 (1983).
2.
Stürmer T, Wyss R, Glynn RJ, Brookhart MA. Propensity scores for confounder adjustment when assessing the effects of medical interventions using nonexperimental study designs. J. Intern. Med. 275(6), 570–580 (2014).
3.
Rosenbaum PR. Observational Studies (2nd Edition). Springer-Verlag, NY, USA (2002).
4.
Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav. Res. 46(3), 399–424 (2011).
5.
Rassen JA, Shelat AA, Franklin JM, Glynn RJ, Solomon DH, Schneeweiss S. Matching by propensity score in cohort studies with three treatment groups. Epidemiology 24(3), 401–409 (2013).
6.
Yang S, Imbens GW, Cui Z, Faries DE, Kadziola Z. Propensity score matching and subclassification in observational studies with multi-level treatments. Biometrics 72(4), 1055–1065 (2016).
7.
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J. Clin. 65(1), 5–29 (2015).
8.
Karve SJ, Price GL, Davis KL, Pohl GM, Smyth EN, Bowman L. Comparison of demographics, treatment patterns, health care utilization, and costs among elderly patients with extensive-stage small cell and metastatic non-small-cell lung cancers. BMC Health Serv. Res. 14(1), 555 (2014).
9.
Davis KL, Goyal RK, Able SL, Brown J, Li L, Kaye JA. Real-world treatment patterns and costs in a US Medicare population with metastatic squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 87(2), 176–185 (2015).
10.
NCCN. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) Version 2.2017. www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/nscl.pdf.
11.
Hess LM, Michael D, Mytelka DS, Beyrer J, Liepa AM, Nicol S. Chemotherapy treatment patterns, costs, and outcomes of patients with gastric cancer in the United States: a retrospective analysis of electronic medical record (EMR) and administrative claims data. Gastric Cancer 19(2), 607–615 (2016).
12.
Mealing NM, Dobbins TA, Pearson SA. Validation and application of a death proxy in adult cancer patients. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 21(7), 742–748 (2012).
13.
Wong SL, Ricketts K, Royle G, Williams M, Mendes R. A methodology to extract outcomes from routine healthcare data for patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. BMC Health Serv. Res. 18(1), 278 (2018).
14.
Wade RL, Korytowsky B, Singh P, Dev P, Bobiak S, Cariola P. The novel generation and validation of survival curves in oncology utilizing electronic medical records linked to point of service claims data. Value Health 20(9), A421 (2017).
15.
de Rooij M. Transitional modeling of experimental longitudinal data with missing values. Adv. Data Anal. Classif. 12(1), 107–130 (2018).
16.
Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC et al. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am. J. Clin. Oncol. 5(6), 649–655 (1982).
17.
Rosenbaum PR. Observational Studies. Springer, NY, USA (1995).
18.
Austin PC. Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharm. Stat. 10(2), 150–161 (2011).
19.
Normand ST, Landrum MB, Guadagnoli E et al. Validating recommendations for coronary angiography following acute myocardial infarction in the elderly: a matched analysis using propensity scores. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 54(4), 387–398 (2001).
20.
Crump R, Hotz VJ, Imbens G, Mitnik O. Dealing with limited overlap in estimation of average treatment effects. Biometrika 96, 187–199 (2009).
21.
Austin PC, Stuart EA. Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Stat. Med. 34(28), 3661–3679 (2015).
22.
Bang H, Robins JM. Doubly robust estimation in missing data and causal inference models. Biometrics 61(4), 962–973 (2005).
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2018 Future Medicine Ltd.
History
Received: 3 April 2018
Accepted: 5 June 2018
Published online: 21 June 2018
Keywords:
Topics
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Article Usage
Article usage data only available from February 2023. Historical article usage data, showing the number of article downloads, is available upon request.
Citations
How to Cite
Application and comparison of generalized propensity score matching versus pairwise propensity score matching. (2018) Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research. DOI: 10.2217/cer-2018-0030
Export citation
Select the citation format you wish to export for this article or chapter.
Citing Literature
- Tongrong Wang, Honghe Zhao, Shu Yang, Zhanglin Cui, Ilya Lipkovich, Douglas E. Faries, Propensity score matching for estimation of pairwise marginal hazard ratios, Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods, 10.1080/03610926.2024.2419897, 54, 14, (4349-4365), (2024).
- Rui Jia, Zhimin Shuai, Tong Guo, Qian Lu, Xuesong He, Chunlin Hua, Impact of participation in collective action on farmers’ decisions and waiting time to adopt soil and water conservation measures, International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 10.1108/IJCCSM-02-2023-0027, 16, 2, (201-227), (2024).
- Tongrong Wang, Honghe Zhao, Shu Yang, Shuhan Tang, Zhanglin Cui, Li Li, Douglas E. Faries, Propensity score matching for estimating a marginal hazard ratio, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.10103, 43, 14, (2783-2810), (2024).
- Gabrielle Simoneau, Marian Mitroiu, Thomas PA Debray, Wei Wei, Stan RW Wijn, Joana Caldas Magalhães, Justin Bohn, Changyu Shen, Fabio Pellegrini, Carl de Moor, Visualizing the target estimand in comparative effectiveness studies with multiple treatments, Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, 10.57264/cer-2023-0089, 13, 2, (2024).
- Youfei Yu, Min Zhang, Xu Shi, Megan E. V. Caram, Roderick J. A. Little, Bhramar Mukherjee, A comparison of parametric propensity score‐based methods for causal inference with multiple treatments and a binary outcome , Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.8862, 40, 7, (1653-1677), (2021).