ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024
Cardinality matching versus propensity score matching for addressing cluster-level residual confounding in implantable medical device and surgical epidemiology: a parametric and plasmode simulation study.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Causal Forests Versus Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting to Adjust for Cluster-Level Confounding: A Parametric and Plasmode Simulation Study Based on US Hospital Electronic Health Record Data.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRapid innovation and new regulations lead to an increased need for post-marketing surveillance of implantable devices. However, complex multi-level confounding related not only to patient-level but also to surgeon or hospital covariates hampers observational studies of risks and benefits. We conducted parametric and plasmode simulations to compare the performance of cardinality matching (CM) vs propensity score matching (PSM) to reduce confounding bias in the presence of cluster-level confounding.
methodsTwo Monte Carlo simulation studies were carried out: 1) Parametric simulations (1,000 iterations) with patients nested in clusters (ratio 10:1, 50:1, 100:1, 200:1, 500:1) and sample size n = 10,000 were conducted with patient and cluster level confounders; 2) Plasmode simulations generated from a cohort of 9981 patients admitted for pancreatectomy between 2015 to 2019 from a US hospital database. CM with 0.1 standardised mean different constraint threshold (SMD) for confounders and PSM were used to balance the confounders for within-cluster and cross-cluster matching. Treatment effects were then estimated using logistic regression as the outcome model on the obtained matched sample.
resultsCM yielded higher sample retention but more bias than PSM for cross-cluster matching in most scenarios. For instance, with ratio of 100:1, sample retention and relative bias were 97.1% and 26.5% for CM, compared to 82.5% and 12.2% for PSM. The results for plasmode simulation were similar.
conclusionsCM offered better sample retention but higher bias in most scenarios compared to PSM. More research is needed to guide the use of CM particularly in constraint setting for confounders for medical device and surgical epidemiology.
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.