ReviewJournal of minimally invasive surgery2024
Propensity score matching for comparative studies: a tutorial with R and Rex.
Review in Journal of minimally invasive surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of multimodal analgesia using intravenous non-opioid agents on immediate postoperative rescue analgesic use following minor general surgery: a retrospective study.The Korean journal of pain · 2026Article
- An Introductory Tutorial on Propensity Score Matching in RStudio Using the National Health Interview Survey.Cureus · 2026Article
- Reassessing oncologic adequacy and methodological rigor in minimally invasive surgery for remnant gastric cancer.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2026Article
- Does the lung cancer screening (LCS) pathway independently improve surgical outcomes compared with the routine pathway: a matched-case analysis.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Clinical outcomes following GnRH antagonist protocol change to PPOS protocol versus GnRH antagonist protocol in patients with pre-elevated progesterone: a propensity score matching study.Journal of ovarian research · 2025Article
- Adjuvant chemotherapy for gallbladder cancer: Current evidence, controversies, and future directions.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Clinical and immunological insights into SARS-CoV-2 reinfection: a propensity score-matched cohort study.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recently, there has been considerable progress in developing new technologies and equipment for the medical field, including minimally invasive surgeries. Evaluating the effectiveness of these treatments requires study designs like randomized controlled trials. However, due to the nature of certain treatments, randomization is not always feasible, leading to the use of observational studies. The effect size estimated from observational studies is subject to selection bias caused by confounders. One method to reduce this bias is propensity scoring. This study aimed to introduce a propensity score matching process between two groups using a practical example with R. Additionally, Rex, an Excel add-in graphical user interface statistical program, is provided for researchers unfamiliar with R programming. Further techniques, such as matching with three or more groups, propensity score weighting and stratification, and imputation of missing values, are summarized to offer approaches for more complex studies not covered in this tutorial.
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.