Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28356782›Full record

ArticlePragmatic and observational research2017

An evaluation of exact matching and propensity score methods as applied in a comparative effectiveness study of inhaled corticosteroids in asthma.

Anne Burden, Nicolas Roche, Cristiana Miglio, Elizabeth V Hillyer, Dirkje S Postma, Ron Mc Herings, Jetty A Overbeek, Javaria Mona Khalid, Daniela van Eickels, David B Price

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pragmatic and observational research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Exact matching of trabectome-mediated ab interno trabeculectomy to conventional trabeculectomy with mitomycin C followed for 2 years.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. History of posttraumatic stress disorder and outcomes after kidney transplantation.American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons · 2019
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Anne BurdenObservational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd, Singapore.
Nicolas RocheUniversity Paris Descartes (EA2511), Cochin Hospital Group (AP-HP), Paris, France.
Cristiana MiglioObservational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd, Singapore.
Elizabeth V HillyerObservational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd, Singapore.
Dirkje S PostmaDepartment of Pulmonology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen.
Ron Mc HeringsPHARMO Institute for Drug Outcomes Research, Utrech, the Netherlands.
Jetty A OverbeekPHARMO Institute for Drug Outcomes Research, Utrech, the Netherlands.
Javaria Mona KhalidTakeda Development Centre Europe Ltd, London, UK.
Daniela van EickelsTakeda Pharmaceuticals International GmbH, Zurich, Switzerland.
David B PriceObservational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd, Singapore; Academic Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCohort matching and regression modeling are used in observational studies to control for confounding factors when estimating treatment effects. Our objective was to evaluate exact matching and propensity score methods by applying them in a 1-year pre-post historical database study to investigate asthma-related outcomes by treatment.

methodsWe drew on longitudinal medical record data in the PHARMO database for asthma patients prescribed the treatments to be compared (ciclesonide and fine-particle inhaled corticosteroid [ICS]). Propensity score methods that we evaluated were propensity score matching (PSM) using two different algorithms, the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), covariate adjustment using the propensity score, and propensity score stratification. We defined balance, using standardized differences, as differences of <10% between cohorts.

resultsOf 4064 eligible patients, 1382 (34%) were prescribed ciclesonide and 2682 (66%) fine-particle ICS. The IPTW and propensity score-based methods retained more patients (96%-100%) than exact matching (90%); exact matching selected less severe patients. Standardized differences were >10% for four variables in the exact-matched dataset and <10% for both PSM algorithms and the weighted pseudo-dataset used in the IPTW method. With all methods, ciclesonide was associated with better 1-year asthma-related outcomes, at one-third the prescribed dose, than fine-particle ICS; results varied slightly by method, but direction and statistical significance remained the same.

conclusionWe found that each method has its particular strengths, and we recommend at least two methods be applied for each matched cohort study to evaluate the robustness of the findings. Balance diagnostics should be applied with all methods to check the balance of confounders between treatment cohorts. If exact matching is used, the calculation of a propensity score could be useful to identify variables that require balancing, thereby informing the choice of matching criteria together with clinical considerations.

Indexed as

asthmaexact matchingobservationalpropensity score

Identifiers

PMID28356782
PMCPMC5367458

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.