Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34268425›Full record

ReviewAnnals of translational medicine2021

Propensity score matching with R: conventional methods and new features.

Qin-Yu Zhao, Jing-Chao Luo, Ying Su, Yi-Jie Zhang, Guo-Wei Tu, Zhe Luo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of translational medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 126 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
126citing papers in PubMed
–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

126 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Towards causal inference-based antidepressant selection with brain and blood biomarkers.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

66 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

6 authors.

Qin-Yu ZhaoCollege of Engineering and Computer Science, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Jing-Chao LuoDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Ying SuDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Yi-Jie ZhangDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Guo-Wei TuDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Zhe LuoDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Xiamen Branch, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Xiamen, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is increasingly important to accurately and comprehensively estimate the effects of particular clinical treatments. Although randomization is the current gold standard, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often limited in practice due to ethical and cost issues. Observational studies have also attracted a great deal of attention as, quite often, large historical datasets are available for these kinds of studies. However, observational studies also have their drawbacks, mainly including the systematic differences in baseline covariates, which relate to outcomes between treatment and control groups that can potentially bias results. Propensity score methods, which are a series of balancing methods in these studies, have become increasingly popular by virtue of the two major advantages of dimension reduction and design separation. Within this approach, propensity score matching (PSM) has been empirically proven, with outstanding performances across observational datasets. While PSM tutorials are available in the literature, there is still room for improvement. Some PSM tutorials provide step-by-step guidance, but only one or two packages have been covered, thereby limiting their scope and practicality. Several articles and books have expounded upon propensity scores in detail, exploring statistical principles and theories; however, the lack of explanations on function usage in programming language has made it difficult for researchers to understand and follow these materials. To this end, this tutorial was developed with a six-step PSM framework, in which we summarize the recent updates and provide step-by-step guidance to the R programming language. This tutorial offers researchers with a broad survey of PSM, ranging from data preprocessing to estimations of propensity scores, and from matching to analyses. We also explain generalized propensity scoring for multiple or continuous treatments, as well as time-dependent PSM. Lastly, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of propensity score methods.

Indexed as

Causal inferenceobservational studypropensity score matching (PSM)R programming language

Identifiers

PMID34268425
PMCPMC8246231

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.