Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34814845›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2021

Evaluating the performance of propensity score matching based approaches in individual patient data meta-analysis.

Fatema Tuj Johara, Andrea Benedetti, Robert Platt, Dick Menzies, Piret Viiklepp, Simon Schaaf, Edward Chan

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Fatema Tuj JoharaDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. fatema.johara@mail.mcgill.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-2525-2146
Andrea BenedettiDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Robert PlattDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Dick MenziesDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Piret ViikleppDepartment of Medical Registries, National Institute for Health Development, Tallinn, Estonia.
Simon SchaafDepartment of Paediatrics and Child Health, Stellenbosch University and Tygerberg Children's Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa.
Edward ChanPulmonary Section, Rocky Mountain Regional Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Aurora, USA.
McGill University Health Centre · CAJewish General Hospital · CANational Institute for Health Development · EEStellenbosch University · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIndividual-patient data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) is an increasingly popular approach because of its analytical benefits. IPD-MA of observational studies must overcome the problem of confounding, otherwise biased estimates of treatment effect may be obtained. One approach to reducing confounding bias could be the use of propensity score matching (PSM). IPD-MA can be considered as two-stage clustered data (patients within studies) and propensity score matching can be implemented within studies, across studies, and combining both.

methodsThis article focuses on implementation of four PSM-based approaches for the analysis of data structure that exploit IPD-MA in two ways: (i) estimation of propensity score model using single-level or random-effects logistic regression; and (ii) matching of propensity scores (PS) across studies, within studies or preferential-within studies. We investigated the performance of these approaches through a simulation study, which considers an IPD-MA that examined the success of different treatments for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB). The simulation parameters were varied according to three treatment prevalences (according to studies, 50% and 30%), three levels of heterogeneity between studies (low, moderate and high) and three levels of pooled odds ratio (1, 1.5, 3).

resultsAll approaches showed greater biases at the higher levels of heterogeneity regardless of the choices of treatment prevalences. However, matching of propensity scores using within-study and preferential-within study reported better performance compared to matching across studies when treatment prevalence varied across-studies. For fixed prevalences, a random-effect propensity score model to estimate propensity scores followed by matching of propensity scores across-studies achieved lower biases compared to other PSM-based approaches.

conclusionsPropensity score matching has wide application in health research while only limited literature is available on the implementation of PSM methods in IPD-MA, and until now methodological performance of PSM methods have not been examined. We believe, this work offers an intuition to the applied researcher for the choice of the PSM-based approaches.

Indexed as

Tuberculosis, Multidrug-ResistantBiasComputer SimulationHumansLogistic ModelsPropensity ScoreBiasConfoundingIPD-MAObservational studiesPropensity score matching

Identifiers

PMID34814845
PMCPMC8609730
OpenAlexW3170350666

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.