Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31619986›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2019

Propensity Score Methods in Health Technology Assessment: Principles, Extended Applications, and Recent Advances.

M Sanni Ali, Daniel Prieto-Alhambra, Luciane Cruz Lopes, Dandara Ramos, Nivea Bispo, Maria Y Ichihara, Julia M Pescarini, Elizabeth Williamson, Rosemeire L Fiaccone, Mauricio L Barreto and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 97 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
97citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

97 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article

37 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

11 authors.

M Sanni AliFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Daniel Prieto-AlhambraNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS), Center for Statistics in Medicine (CSM), University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Luciane Cruz LopesUniversity of Sorocaba-UNISO, Sorocaba, São Paulo, Brazil.
Dandara RamosCentre for Data and Knowledge Integration for Health (CIDACS), Instituto Gonçalo Muniz, Fundação Osvaldo Cruz, Salvador, Brazil.
Nivea BispoCentre for Data and Knowledge Integration for Health (CIDACS), Instituto Gonçalo Muniz, Fundação Osvaldo Cruz, Salvador, Brazil.
Maria Y IchiharaCentre for Data and Knowledge Integration for Health (CIDACS), Instituto Gonçalo Muniz, Fundação Osvaldo Cruz, Salvador, Brazil.
Julia M PescariniCentre for Data and Knowledge Integration for Health (CIDACS), Instituto Gonçalo Muniz, Fundação Osvaldo Cruz, Salvador, Brazil.
Elizabeth WilliamsonFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Rosemeire L FiacconeCentre for Data and Knowledge Integration for Health (CIDACS), Instituto Gonçalo Muniz, Fundação Osvaldo Cruz, Salvador, Brazil.
Mauricio L BarretoCentre for Data and Knowledge Integration for Health (CIDACS), Instituto Gonçalo Muniz, Fundação Osvaldo Cruz, Salvador, Brazil.
Liam SmeethFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/M013278/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Randomized clinical trials (RCT) are accepted as the gold-standard approaches to measure effects of intervention or treatment on outcomes. They are also the designs of choice for health technology assessment (HTA). Randomization ensures comparability, in both measured and unmeasured pretreatment characteristics, of individuals assigned to treatment and control or comparator. However, even adequately powered RCTs are not always feasible for several reasons such as cost, time, practical and ethical constraints, and limited generalizability. RCTs rely on data collected on selected, homogeneous population under highly controlled conditions; hence, they provide evidence on efficacy of interventions rather than on effectiveness. Alternatively, observational studies can provide evidence on the relative effectiveness or safety of a health technology compared to one or more alternatives when provided under the setting of routine health care practice. In observational studies, however, treatment assignment is a non-random process based on an individual's baseline characteristics; hence, treatment groups may not be comparable in their pretreatment characteristics. As a result, direct comparison of outcomes between treatment groups might lead to biased estimate of the treatment effect. Propensity score approaches have been used to achieve balance or comparability of treatment groups in terms of their measured pretreatment covariates thereby controlling for confounding bias in estimating treatment effects. Despite the popularity of propensity scores methods and recent important methodological advances, misunderstandings on their applications and limitations are all too common. In this article, we present a review of the propensity scores methods, extended applications, recent advances, and their strengths and limitations.

Indexed as

biasconfoundingeffectivenesshealth technology assessmentobservational studypropensity scoresafetysecondary data

Identifiers

PMID31619986
PMCPMC6760465

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.