MétaCan
← all works

Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity‐score matched samples

2009· article· en· 6,487 citations· W2126049444 on OpenAlex· 10.1002/sim.3697

Why is this work in the frame?

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

Canadian affiliationAn author listed a Canadian institution. This is the only route the usual frame has.
Canadian funderA Canadian agency funded it. The work may carry no Canadian affiliation at all.

Abstract

The propensity score is a subject's probability of treatment, conditional on observed baseline covariates. Conditional on the true propensity score, treated and untreated subjects have similar distributions of observed baseline covariates. Propensity-score matching is a popular method of using the propensity score in the medical literature. Using this approach, matched sets of treated and untreated subjects with similar values of the propensity score are formed. Inferences about treatment effect made using propensity-score matching are valid only if, in the matched sample, treated and untreated subjects have similar distributions of measured baseline covariates. In this paper we discuss the following methods for assessing whether the propensity score model has been correctly specified: comparing means and prevalences of baseline characteristics using standardized differences; ratios comparing the variance of continuous covariates between treated and untreated subjects; comparison of higher order moments and interactions; five-number summaries; and graphical methods such as quantile-quantile plots, side-by-side boxplots, and non-parametric density plots for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups. We describe methods to determine the sampling distribution of the standardized difference when the true standardized difference is equal to zero, thereby allowing one to determine the range of standardized differences that are plausible with the propensity score model having been correctly specified. We highlight the limitations of some previously used methods for assessing the adequacy of the specification of the propensity-score model. In particular, methods based on comparing the distribution of the estimated propensity score between treated and untreated subjects are uninformative.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

The record

Venue
Statistics in Medicine
Topic
Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Field
Mathematics
Canadian institutions
Institute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
Keywords
Propensity score matchingCovariateStatisticsMatching (statistics)QuantileMathematicsMedicine
Has abstract in OpenAlex
yes