ArticleBMC medical research methodology2016
On the use of propensity scores in case of rare exposure.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comparison of revision risk between lateral knee replacement and total knee replacement: results from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.Acta orthopaedica · 2026Article
- Estimating real-world treatment effects in the presence of measurement error and sparse outcome data using propensity score methods.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Use of Machine Learning to Compare Disease Risk Scores and Propensity Scores Across Complex Confounding Scenarios: A Simulation Study.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2025Article
- Can supervised deep learning architecture outperform autoencoders in building propensity score models for matching?BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Identifying the effect of inherited bleeding disorders on the development of postpartum hemorrhage: a population-based, retrospective cohort study.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2023Article
- Standardizing Discrete-Time Hazard Ratios With a Disease Risk Score.American journal of epidemiology · 2020Article
- G-computation, propensity score-based methods, and targeted maximum likelihood estimator for causal inference with different covariates sets: a comparative simulation study.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Performance of matching methods in studies of rare diseases: a simulation study.Intractable & rare diseases research · 2020Article
- Marginal Structural Models for Risk or Prevalence Ratios for a Point Exposure Using a Disease Risk Score.American journal of epidemiology · 2019Article
- Evaluation of Complementary and Integrative Health Approaches Among US Veterans with Musculoskeletal Pain Using Propensity Score Methods.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2019Article
- The Impact of Nondifferential Exposure Misclassification on the Performance of Propensity Scores for Continuous and Binary Outcomes: A Simulation Study.Medical care · 2018Article
- Gender as an independent prognostic factor in small-cell lung cancer: Inha Lung Cancer Cohort study using propensity score matching.PloS one · 2018Article
- Aspirin and the risk of cardiovascular events in atherosclerosis patients with and without prior ischemic events.Clinical cardiology · 2017Observational
- Comparison between treatment effects in a randomised controlled trial and an observational study using propensity scores in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundObservational post-marketing assessment studies often involve evaluating the effect of a rare treatment on a time-to-event outcome, through the estimation of a marginal hazard ratio. Propensity score (PS) methods are the most used methods to estimate marginal effect of an exposure in observational studies. However there is paucity of data concerning their performance in a context of low prevalence of exposure.
methodsWe conducted an extensive series of Monte Carlo simulations to examine the performance of the two preferred PS methods, known as PS-matching and PS-weighting to estimate marginal hazard ratios, through various scenarios.
resultsWe found that both PS-weighting and PS-matching could be biased when estimating the marginal effect of rare exposure. The less biased results were obtained with estimators of average treatment effect in the treated population (ATT), in comparison with estimators of average treatment effect in the overall population (ATE). Among ATT estimators, PS-weighting using ATT weights outperformed PS-matching. These results are illustrated using a real observational study.
conclusionsWhen clinical objectives are focused on the treated population, applied researchers are encouraged to estimate ATT with PS-weighting for studying the relative effect of a rare treatment on time-to-event outcomes.
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.