ArticleStatistics in medicine2023
Propensity score matching after multiple imputation when a confounder has missing data.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lipoprotein(a) and acute myocardial infarction: Differential risk across age and sex subgroups.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Article
- Outcome-Assisted Multiple Imputation of Missing Treatments.Observational studies · 2026Article
- Concurrent chemoradiotherapy vs. total laryngectomy in locally advanced laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma: a propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study.American journal of cancer research · 2026Article
- Sex differences in risk factors for unsuccessful tuberculosis treatment outcomes in Eastern Europe from 2020 to 2022: a multi-country retrospective cohort study.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2025Article
- TriNetX and Real-World Evidence: A Critical Review of Its Strengths, Limitations, and Bias Considerations in Clinical Research.ASIDE internal medicine · 2025Article
- Substance use and psychiatric outcomes following substance use disorder treatment: An 18-month prospective cohort study in Chile.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2025Article
- Long-Term Outcomes of an Infliximab-First Versus Vedolizumab-First Treatment Strategy in Biologic-Naïve Patients With Ulcerative Colitis.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2025Article
- Observational study of frailty in older Japanese patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation receiving anticoagulation therapy.Scientific reports · 2024Observational
- Reply to "Considerations for evaluating antibiotic prophylaxis in cirrhotic patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding in real-world data".Journal of gastroenterology · 2024Article
- How to perform prespecified subgroup analyses when using propensity score methods in the case of imbalanced subgroups.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
- How to Choose the Optimal Starting Dose of Clomiphene Citrate (50 or 100 mg per Day) for a First Cycle of Ovulation Induction in Anovulatory PCOS Women?Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Propensity score matching after multiple imputation when a confounder has missing data.Statistics in medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
One of the main challenges when using observational data for causal inference is the presence of confounding. A classic approach to account for confounding is the use of propensity score techniques that provide consistent estimators of the causal treatment effect under four common identifiability assumptions for causal effects, including that of no unmeasured confounding. Propensity score matching is a very popular approach which, in its simplest form, involves matching each treated patient to an untreated patient with a similar estimated propensity score, that is, probability of receiving the treatment. The treatment effect can then be estimated by comparing treated and untreated patients within the matched dataset. When missing data arises, a popular approach is to apply multiple imputation to handle the missingness. The combination of propensity score matching and multiple imputation is increasingly applied in practice. However, in this article we demonstrate that combining multiple imputation and propensity score matching can lead to over-coverage of the confidence interval for the treatment effect estimate. We explore the cause of this over-coverage and we evaluate, in this context, the performance of a correction to Rubin's rules for multiple imputation proposed by finding that this correction removes the over-coverage.
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.