Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32297677›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2020

A novel approach for propensity score matching and stratification for multiple treatments: Application to an electronic health record-derived study.

Derek W Brown, Stacia M DeSantis, Thomas J Greene, Vahed Maroufy, Ashraf Yaseen, Hulin Wu, George Williams, Michael D Swartz

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Modeling transmission of pathogens in healthcare settings.Current opinion in infectious diseases · 2021
    Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Derek W BrownIntegrative Tumor Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8393-1713
Stacia M DeSantisDepartment of Biostatistics and Data Science, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3400-1031
Thomas J GreeneGlaxoSmithKline, Division of Biostatistics, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5108-713X
Vahed MaroufyDepartment of Biostatistics and Data Science, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA.
Ashraf YaseenDepartment of Biostatistics and Data Science, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA.
Hulin WuDepartment of Biostatistics and Data Science, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5809-5407
George WilliamsDepartment of Anesthesiology, McGovern Medical School at UTHealth, Houston, Texas, USA.
Michael D SwartzDepartment of Biostatistics and Data Science, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA.
The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston · USGlaxoSmithKline (United States) · USNational Cancer Institute · US

Funding

Training Program in Biostatistics at UTHSCH-SPHT32GM074902 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI DESANTIS, STACIA · 2006 to 2018
$1.4M
NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM074902
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Currently, methods for conducting multiple treatment propensity scoring in the presence of high-dimensional covariate spaces that result from "big data" are lacking-the most prominent method relies on inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW). However, IPTW only utilizes one element of the generalized propensity score (GPS) vector, which can lead to a loss of information and inadequate covariate balance in the presence of multiple treatments. This limitation motivates the development of a novel propensity score method that uses the entire GPS vector to establish a scalar balancing score that, when adjusted for, achieves covariate balance in the presence of potentially high-dimensional covariates. Specifically, the generalized propensity score cumulative distribution function (GPS-CDF) method is introduced. A one-parameter power function fits the CDF of the GPS vector and a resulting scalar balancing score is used for matching and/or stratification. Simulation results show superior performance of the new method compared to IPTW both in achieving covariate balance and estimating average treatment effects in the presence of multiple treatments. The proposed approach is applied to a study derived from electronic medical records to determine the causal relationship between three different vasopressors and mortality in patients with non-traumatic aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Results suggest that the GPS-CDF method performs well when applied to large observational studies with multiple treatments that have large covariate spaces.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsCausalityComputer SimulationHumansMonte Carlo MethodPropensity Scorecausal inferencemultinomial treatmentsobservational studypropensity score

Identifiers

PMID32297677
PMCPMC7334100
OpenAlexW3017339168

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.