ArticlePloS one2022
Propensity score methods for comparative-effectiveness analysis: A case study of direct oral anticoagulants in the atrial fibrillation population.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Performance of propensity score methods in observational studies: a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- A systematic review of chiropractic care for fall prevention: rationale, state of the evidence, and recommendations for future research.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Pooled it
- Comparative Effectiveness of Direct Oral Anticoagulants and Warfarin on Venous Thromboembolism in Cancer Patients.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Comparative clinical outcomes of acenocoumarol versus direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: real-world-evidence (SIESTA-A study).Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Neoadjuvant compared to adjuvant chemotherapy combined with trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer: a register-based cohort study.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2024Article
- Evaluating the effect of inequalities in oral anti-coagulant prescribing on outcomes in people with atrial fibrillation.European heart journal open · 2024Article
- Impact of selexipag use within 12 months of pulmonary arterial hypertension diagnosis on hospitalizations and medical costs: A retrospective cohort study.The clinical respiratory journal · 2023Article
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
Abstract
objectiveTo explore methodological challenges when using real-world evidence (RWE) to estimate comparative-effectiveness in the context of Health Technology Assessment of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in Scotland.
methodsWe used linkage data from the Prescribing Information System (PIS), Scottish Morbidity Records (SMR) and mortality records for newly anticoagulated patients to explore methodological challenges in the use of Propensity score (PS) matching, Inverse Probability Weighting (IPW) and covariate adjustment with PS. Model performance was assessed by standardised difference. Clinical outcomes (stroke and major bleeding) and mortality were compared for all DOACs (including apixaban, dabigatran and rivaroxaban) versus warfarin. Patients were followed for 2 years from first oral anticoagulant prescription to first clinical event or death. Censoring was applied for treatment switching or discontinuation.
resultsOverall, a good balance of patients' covariates was obtained with every PS model tested. IPW was found to be the best performing method in assessing covariate balance when applied to subgroups with relatively large sample sizes (combined-DOACs versus warfarin). With the IPTW-IPCW approach, the treatment effect tends to be larger, but still in line with the treatment effect estimated using other PS methods. Covariate adjustment with PS in the outcome model performed well when applied to subgroups with smaller sample sizes (dabigatran versus warfarin), as this method does not require further reduction of sample size, and trimming or truncation of extreme weights.
conclusionThe choice of adequate PS methods may vary according to the characteristics of the data. If assumptions of unobserved confounding hold, multiple approaches should be identified and tested. PS based methods can be implemented using routinely collected linked data, thus supporting Health Technology decision-making.
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.