ArticleIntractable & rare diseases research2020
Performance of matching methods in studies of rare diseases: a simulation study.
Article in Intractable & rare diseases research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- QT Prolongation, Ventricular Arrhythmia, and Cardiac Arrest Signals During Ceftriaxone Co-therapy with Individual Proton Pump Inhibitors: A Multidatabase Study.Cardiovascular toxicology · 2026Observational
- From Small Data to Big Decisions: How Clinical Pharmacology Shapes Rare Disease Development.Journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Review
- Caveats on Using Firth's Penalization in the Model-Based Regression Standardization for Rare Diseases.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
- Estimating covariate-balanced survival curve in distributed data environment using data collaboration quasi-experiment.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Association between cholecystectomy and colorectal cancer: results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2017-2023 and Mendelian randomization analyses.Translational cancer research · 2025Article
- Letter to the editor regarding: Influence of CYP2D6 polymorphisms on tamoxifen side effects in patients with breast cancer.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2025Article
- Effect of Huaier granule on prognosis of breast cancer: A single-center propensity score matching retrospective study.Chinese medical journal · 2025Article
- Exploring the Relationship Between Personalization of Care and Participation in Sport Activities Among People with Severe Hemophilia A Across Europe: Post Hoc Analysis of the CHESS II Study.Journal of blood medicine · 2025Article
- Brentuximab vedotin and chemotherapy in relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma: a propensity score-matched analysis.Blood advances · 2024Article
- Article
- Hyperbaric oxygen treatment in the management of necrotising soft-tissue infections: results from a Danish nationwide registry study.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Exploring the ability of vocal biomarkers in distinguishing depression from bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and healthy controls.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- Supervised training of laparoscopic colorectal cancer resections does not adversely affect short- and long-term outcomes: a Propensity-score-matched cohort study.World journal of surgical oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Matching is a common method of adjusting for confounding in observational studies. Studies in rare diseases usually include small numbers of exposed subjects, but the performance of matching methods in such cases has not been evaluated thoroughly. In this study, we compare the performance of several matching methods when number of exposed subjects is small. We used Monte Carlo simulations to compare the following methods: Propensity score matching (PSM) with greedy or optimal algorithm, Mahalanobis distance matching, and mixture of PSM and exact matching. We performed the comparisons in datasets with six continuous and six binary variables, with varying effect size on group assignment and outcome. In each case, there were 1,500 unexposed subjects and a varying number of exposed:
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.