Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35073380›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Propensity score methods for comparative-effectiveness analysis: A case study of direct oral anticoagulants in the atrial fibrillation population.

Giorgio Ciminata, Claudia Geue, Olivia Wu, Manuela Deidda, Noemi Kreif, Peter Langhorne

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

Giorgio CiminataHealth Economics and Health Technology Assessment (HEHTA), Institute of Health & Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6905-6817
Claudia GeueHealth Economics and Health Technology Assessment (HEHTA), Institute of Health & Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Olivia WuHealth Economics and Health Technology Assessment (HEHTA), Institute of Health & Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Manuela DeiddaHealth Economics and Health Technology Assessment (HEHTA), Institute of Health & Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Noemi KreifCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, United Kingdom.
Peter LanghorneInstitute of Cardiovascular & Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K007017/1Medical Research Council MR/L012332/1Medical Research Council MR/L012332/2
6 · The paper itself

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

Propensity ScoreAdministration, OralAgedAnticoagulantsAtrial FibrillationComparative Effectiveness ResearchDabigatranFemaleHumansMaleScotlandStrokeWarfarinAnticoagulantsDabigatranWarfarin

Identifiers

PMID35073380
PMCPMC8786176

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.