ReviewGastrointestinal endoscopy2019
Propensity score methods to control for confounding in observational cohort studies: a statistical primer and application to endoscopy research.
Review in Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 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
37 citing papers in PubMed, 73 citations in OpenAlex.
- Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and pancreatic outcomes in chronic pancreatitis: a real-world cohort study.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Feasibility of Endoscopic Surgery Versus Craniotomy for Large Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage.Neurocritical care · 2026Article
- Access to primary care for people with chronic pain: a lived/living experience-informed mixed-methods study protocol.BMJ open · 2026Article
- New electrocardiographic changes as predictors of acute coronary interventions in the emergency department: a retrospective observational study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Observational
- A prospective cohort study on progestin-primed ovarian stimulation vs. GnRH antagonist in IVF-ICSI cycles: effects on clinical pregnancy and neonatal outcomes.Journal of ovarian research · 2025Article
- Observational
- Comment on "Associations of semaglutide with first-time diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease in patients with type 2 diabetes: Target trial emulation using nationwide real-world data in the US".Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025Article
- Endoscopic intervention in hematologic malignancy patients with severe thrombocytopenia: Methodological concerns, clinical implications, and future research directions.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Article
- Prevalence and Risk Factors for Postoperative Neurological Complications in Spinal Deformity Surgery: A Systematic Review and Proportional Meta-Analysis.Neurospine · 2025Article
- Psoriasis increases the risk of Sjögren's syndrome: evidence from a propensity score-matched cohort study and transcriptomic analysis.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- Exploring the Glycemic Control of Pay-for-Performance Program for Psychiatric Patients With Diabetes in Real World: A Retrospective Quasiexperimental Study.Journal of diabetes research · 2025Article
- Associations between feeding patterns and clinical outcomes of Hirschsprung's disease after surgery: propensity score matching approach.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
- Association Between Long-term Statin Therapy and New-onset Diabetes in Cardiovascular Risk Patients in the UAE.Oman medical journal · 2024Article
- Belimumab in early systemic lupus erythematosus: A propensity score matching analysis.Immunity, inflammation and disease · 2024Article
- Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementia Following Hormone-Modulating Therapy in Patients With Breast Cancer.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Impact of mobile application and outpatient follow-up on renal endpoints and physiological indices in patients with chronic kidney disease: a retrospective cohort study in Southwest China.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Propensity score matched analysis and risk stratification of donors with G6PD deficiency in living donor liver transplantation.Hepatology international · 2024Article
- Short-term efficacy of additional laparoscopic-assisted radical gastrectomy after non-curative endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Article
- Birth order, sibship size, and risk of atopic dermatitis, food allergy, and atopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical and translational allergy · 2023Review
- Development and validation of a nomogram to predict which patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases would benefit from primary tumor resection.International journal of colorectal disease · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsConfounding is a major concern in nonexperimental studies of endoscopic interventions and can lead to biased estimates of the effects of treatment. Propensity score methods, which are commonly used in the pharmacoepidemiology literature, can effectively control for baseline confounding by balancing measured baseline confounders and risk factors and creating comparable populations of treated and untreated patients.
methodsWe propose the following 5-step checklist to guide the use and evaluation of propensity score methods: (1) select covariates, (2) assess "Table 1" balance in risk factors before propensity score implementation, (3) estimate and implement the propensity score in the study cohort, (4) reassess "Table 1" balance in risk factors after propensity score implementation, and (5) critically evaluate differences between matched and unmatched patients after propensity score implementation. We then applied this checklist to an endoscopy example using a study cohort of 411 adults with newly diagnosed eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), some of whom were treated with esophageal dilation.
resultsWe identified 156 patients, aged 18 and older, who were treated with esophageal dilation, and 255 patients who were nondilated. We successfully matched 148 (95%) dilated patients to nondilated patients who had a propensity score within 0.1, based on patient age, sex, race, self-reported food allergy, and presence of narrowing at baseline endoscopy. Crude imbalances were observed before propensity score matching in several baseline covariates, including age, sex, and narrowing; however, propensity score matching was successful in achieving balance across all measured covariates.
conclusionsWe provide an introduction to propensity score methods, including a straightforward checklist for implementing propensity score methods in nonexperimental studies of treatment effectiveness. Moreover, we demonstrate the advantage of using "Table 1" as a simple but effective diagnostic tool for evaluating the success of propensity score methods in an applied example of esophageal dilation in EoE.
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.