ReviewMultiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England)2022
The use and quality of reporting of propensity score methods in multiple sclerosis literature: A review.
Review in Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Target trial emulation to replicate randomised clinical trials using registry data in multiple sclerosis.Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry · 2026Observational
- Can supervised deep learning architecture outperform autoencoders in building propensity score models for matching?BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Visualizing the target estimand in comparative effectiveness studies with multiple treatments.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2024Article
- Excess costs of multiple sclerosis: a register-based study in Sweden.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2023Observational
- Recommendations for the use of propensity score methods in multiple sclerosis research.Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2022Article
- Impact of methodological choices in comparative effectiveness studies: application in natalizumab versus fingolimod comparison among patients with multiple sclerosis.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Article
- Early High Efficacy Treatment in Multiple Sclerosis Is the Best Predictor of Future Disease Activity Over 1 and 2 Years in a Norwegian Population-Based Registry.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPropensity score (PS) analyses are increasingly used in multiple sclerosis (MS) research, largely owing to the greater availability of large observational cohorts and registry databases.
objectiveTo evaluate the use and quality of reporting of PS methods in the recent MS literature.
methodsWe searched the PubMed database for articles published between January 2013 and July 2019. We restricted the search to comparative effectiveness studies of two disease-modifying therapies.
resultsThirty-nine studies were included in the review, with most studies (62%) published within the past 3 years. All studies reported the list of covariates used for the PS model, but only 21% of studies mentioned how those covariates were selected. Most studies used PS matching (72%), followed by PS adjustment (18%), weighting (15%), and stratification (3%), with some overlap. Most studies using matching or weighting reported checking post-PS covariate imbalance (91%), although about 45% of these studies relied on
conclusionsThe quality of reporting of PS methods in the MS literature is sub-optimal in general, and in some cases, inappropriate methods are used.
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.