ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2019
Propensity Score Methods in Health Technology Assessment: Principles, Extended Applications, and Recent Advances.
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.
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
97 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Oncological outcomes in minimally invasive vs. open distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Voice Patterns as Markers of Schizophrenia: Building a Cumulative Generalizable Approach Via a Cross-Linguistic and Meta-analysis Based Investigation.Schizophrenia bulletin · 2023Pooled it
- Initiation of continuous renal replacement therapy versus intermittent hemodialysis in critically ill patients with severe acute kidney injury: a secondary analysis of STARRT-AKI trial.Intensive care medicine · 2023Trial
- Trial
- Comparing g-computation, propensity score-based weighting, and targeted maximum likelihood estimation for analyzing externally controlled trials with both measured and unmeasured confounders: a simulation study.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Trial
- "We were locked in with our trauma" - a mixed-methods study of health pathways among intimate partner violence (IPV) survivors during COVID-19 lockdowns in Ontario.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Conditional cash transfer and mortality among interpersonal violence victims: A cohort study.PLoS medicine · 2026Article
- Cash Transfers and Psychiatric Hospitalization for At-Risk Populations in Brazil.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- High-risk soft-tissue sarcomas in elderly patients: does perioperative radiotherapy improve local control and prognosis?BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Stress cardiac magnetic resonance vs. fractional flow reserve-guided management for intermediate coronary stenosis: a single-center retrospective propensity-matched study with 12-month follow-up.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Early intravenous immunoglobulin use improves live birth outcomes in women with recurrent pregnancy loss: a propensity score-matched cohort study.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Methodological guidance on implementing propensity score matching in observational studies of kidney transplantation.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Phenotype, serotype, and data-driven clustering reveal complementary dimensions of heterogeneity in ANCA-associated vasculitis: a multicentre Japanese cohort (J-CANVAS).Rheumatology international · 2025Article
- Effect of exposure to malaria messages on insecticide-treated net use among women and under-five children in Uganda: a propensity score matched analysis.Malaria journal · 2025Article
- RecUrrent Intra-articular Corticosteroid injections in Osteoarthritis: the RUbICOn mixed-methods study.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Article
- Efficacy and safety of rituximab versus intravenous cyclophosphamide for systemic sclerosis-associated interstitial lung disease: a retrospective cohort study.Arthritis research & therapy · 2025Article
- Association between transitional care in acute care hospitals and ambulatory care sensitive condition-related readmission.Age and ageing · 2025Observational
- An episode-based cost analysis of virtual-first versus in-person-first care to treat common acute conditions among members of a large national payor.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- The impact of only-child status on adolescent mental health: a multi-center cross-sectional study using propensity score matching in Western China.BMC public health · 2025Article
37 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
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
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.