Trial reportPloS one2015
Evaluating Propensity Score Methods in a Quasi-Experimental Study of the Impact of Menu-Labeling.
Trial report in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Calorie Labeling and Modified Calorie Labeling Interventions: Impact on Consumer and Restaurant Behavior.Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.) · 2017Pooled it
- Preterm births prevalence during the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil: results from the national database.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Do Community-based Livelihood Interventions Affect Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights of Young People in Slum Areas of Uganda: a Difference-in-difference with Kernel Propensity Score Matching Analysis.Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine · 2022Article
- Caregiving solutions in Mexican households during COVID-19 lockdown.SN social sciences · 2022Review
- Article
- The Synergetic Effect of Cash Transfers for Families, Child Sensitive Social Protection Programs, and Capacity Building for Effective Social Protection on Children's Nutritional Status in Nepal.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2017Article
- Exploring the Role of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Consumption in Obesity among New Yorkers Using Propensity Score Matching.Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics · 2017Article
- The Impact of Healthcare Insurance on the Utilisation of Facility-Based Delivery for Childbirth in the Philippines.PloS one · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundQuasi-experimental studies of menu labeling have found mixed results for improving diet. Differences between experimental groups can hinder interpretation. Propensity scores are an increasingly common method to improve covariate balance, but multiple methods exist and the improvements associated with each method have rarely been compared. In this re-analysis of the impact of menu labeling, we compare multiple propensity score methods to determine which methods optimize balance between experimental groups.
methodsStudy participants included adult customers who visited full-service restaurants with menu labeling (treatment) and without (control). We compared the balance between treatment groups obtained by four propensity score methods: 1) 1:1 nearest neighbor matching (NN), 2) augmented 1:1 NN (using caliper of 0.2 and an exact match on an imbalanced covariate), 3) full matching, and 4) inverse probability weighting (IPW). We then evaluated the treatment effect on differences in nutrients purchased across the different methods.
results1:1 NN resulted in worse balance than the original unmatched sample (average standardized absolute mean distance [ASAM]: 0.185 compared to 0.171). Augmented 1:1 NN improved balance (ASAM: 0.038) but resulted in a large reduction in sample size. Full matching and IPW improved balance over the unmatched sample without a reduction in sample size (ASAM: 0.049 and 0.031, respectively). Menu labeling was associated with decreased calories, fat, sodium and carbohydrates in the unmatched analysis. Results were qualitatively similar in the propensity score matched/weighted models.
conclusionsWhile propensity scores offer an increasingly popular tool to improve causal inference, choosing the correct method can be challenging. Our results emphasize the benefit of examining multiple methods to ensure results are consistent, and considering approaches beyond the most popular method of 1:1 NN matching.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.