ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2016
Comparison of Calipers for Matching on the Disease Risk Score.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- A Novel Integrated Geriatric Services Hub for Frailty Identification and Comprehensive Management of Community-Dwelling Older Adults in Singapore: Impact on Health Service Utilization.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2025Article
- Modifiable lifestyle factors and lifetime risk of atrial fibrillation: longitudinal data from the Korea NHIS-HealS and UK Biobank cohorts.BMC medicine · 2024Article
- Confounder Adjustment Using the Disease Risk Score: A Proposal for Weighting Methods.American journal of epidemiology · 2024Article
- Microwave ablation versus liver resection for primary intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma within Milan criteria: a long-term multicenter cohort study.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
- Beta-blocker exposure and survival outcomes in patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a retrospective cohort study (BETAPANC).Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Protocol for a mixed-methods and multi-site assessment of the implementation process and outcomes of a new community-based frailty programme.BMC geriatrics · 2022Observational
- The "Dry-Run" Analysis: A Method for Evaluating Risk Scores for Confounding Control.American journal of epidemiology · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Previous studies have compared calipers for propensity score (PS) matching, but none have considered calipers for matching on the disease risk score (DRS). We used Medicare claims data to perform 3 cohort studies of medication initiators: a study of raloxifene versus alendronate in 1-year nonvertebral fracture risk, a study of cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors versus nonselective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory medications in 6-month gastrointestinal bleeding, and a study of simvastatin + ezetimibe versus simvastatin alone in 6-month cardiovascular outcomes. The study periods for each cohort were 1998 through 2005, 1999 through 2002, and 2004 through 2005, respectively. In each cohort, we calculated 1) a DRS, 2) a prognostic PS which included the DRS as the independent variable in a PS model, and 3) the PS for each patient. We then nearest-neighbor matched on each score in a variable ratio and a fixed ratio within 8 calipers based on the standard deviation of the logit and the natural score scale. When variable ratio matching on the DRS, a caliper of 0.05 on the natural scale performed poorly when the outcome was rare. The prognostic PS did not appear to offer any consistent practical benefits over matching on the DRS directly. In general, logit-based calipers or calipers smaller than 0.05 on the natural scale performed well when DRS matching in all examples.
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.