IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/ijbist/v8y2012i1n25.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating treatment effectiveness in patient subgroups: a comparison of propensity score methods with an automated matching approach

Author

Listed:
  • Radice Rosalba

    (CLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine)

  • Ramsahai Roland

    (Centre for Statistical Methodology, LSHTM)

  • Grieve Richard

    (Centre for Statistical Methodology, LSHTM)

  • Kreif Noemi

    (Centre for Statistical Methodology, LSHTM)

  • Sadique Zia

    (Centre for Statistical Methodology, LSHTM)

  • Sekhon Jasjeet S.

    (University of California, Berkeley)

Abstract

Propensity score (Pscore) matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) can remove bias due to observed confounders, if the Pscore is correctly specified. Genetic Matching (GenMatch) matches on the Pscore and individual covariates using an automated search algorithm to balance covariates. This paper compares common ways of implementing Pscore matching and IPTW, with Genmatch for balancing time-constant baseline covariates}. The methods are considered when estimates of treatment effectiveness are required for patient subgroups, and the treatment allocation process differs by subgroup. We apply these methods in a prospective cohort study that estimates the effectiveness of Drotrecogin alfa activated, for subgroups of patients with severe sepsis. In a simulation study we compare the methods when the Pscore is correctly specified, and then misspecified by ignoring the subgroup-specific treatment allocation. The simulations also consider poor overlap in baseline covariates, and different sample sizes. In the case study, GenMatch reports better covariate balance than IPTW or Pscore matching. In the simulations with correctly specified Pscores, good overlap and reasonable sample sizes, all methods report minimal bias. When the Pscore is misspecified, GenMatch reports the least imbalance and bias. With small sample sizes, IPTW is the most efficient approach, but all methods report relatively high bias of treatment effects. This study shows that overall GenMatch achieves the best covariate balance for each subgroup, and is more robust to Pscore misspecification than common alternative Pscore approaches.

Suggested Citation

  • Radice Rosalba & Ramsahai Roland & Grieve Richard & Kreif Noemi & Sadique Zia & Sekhon Jasjeet S., 2012. "Evaluating treatment effectiveness in patient subgroups: a comparison of propensity score methods with an automated matching approach," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-45, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:bpj:ijbist:v:8:y:2012:i:1:n:25
    DOI: 10.1515/1557-4679.1382
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/1557-4679.1382
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/1557-4679.1382?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gordon, Sanford C. & Huber, Gregory A., 2007. "The Effect of Electoral Competitiveness on Incumbent Behavior," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 2(2), pages 107-138, May.
    2. Ossi Korkeamäki & Roope Uusitalo, 2009. "Employment and wage effects of a payroll-tax cut—evidence from a regional experiment," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 16(6), pages 753-772, December.
    3. Zhao, Zhong, 2008. "Sensitivity of propensity score methods to the specifications," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 98(3), pages 309-319, March.
    4. Weihua Cao & Anastasios A. Tsiatis & Marie Davidian, 2009. "Improving efficiency and robustness of the doubly robust estimator for a population mean with incomplete data," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 96(3), pages 723-734.
    5. Keisuke Hirano & Guido W. Imbens & Geert Ridder, 2003. "Efficient Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Using the Estimated Propensity Score," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(4), pages 1161-1189, July.
    6. Lefebvre Geneviève & Gustafson Paul, 2010. "Impact of Outcome Model Misspecification on Regression and Doubly-Robust Inverse Probability Weighting to Estimate Causal Effect," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 1-27, March.
    7. Moodie Erica E. M. & Stephens David A, 2010. "Special Issue on Causal Inference," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 1-4, February.
    8. van der Laan Mark J. & Gruber Susan, 2010. "Collaborative Double Robust Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-71, May.
    9. Austin Peter C & Laupacis Andreas, 2011. "A Tutorial on Methods to Estimating Clinically and Policy-Meaningful Measures of Treatment Effects in Prospective Observational Studies: A Review," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-32, January.
    10. Kosuke Imai & Gary King & Elizabeth A. Stuart, 2008. "Misunderstandings between experimentalists and observationalists about causal inference," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 171(2), pages 481-502, April.
    11. Guido W. Imbens, 2004. "Nonparametric Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Under Exogeneity: A Review," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 86(1), pages 4-29, February.
    12. Alberto Abadie & Guido W. Imbens, 2006. "Large Sample Properties of Matching Estimators for Average Treatment Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(1), pages 235-267, January.
    13. Alberto Abadie & Guido W. Imbens, 2016. "Matching on the Estimated Propensity Score," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 84, pages 781-807, March.
    14. Porter Kristin E. & Gruber Susan & van der Laan Mark J. & Sekhon Jasjeet S., 2011. "The Relative Performance of Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimators," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-34, August.
    15. Heejung Bang & James M. Robins, 2005. "Doubly Robust Estimation in Missing Data and Causal Inference Models," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 61(4), pages 962-973, December.
    16. Mebane Jr., Walter R. & Sekhon, Jasjeet S., 2011. "Genetic Optimization Using Derivatives: The rgenoud Package for R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 42(i11).
    17. Ertefaie Ashkan & Stephens David A, 2010. "Comparing Approaches to Causal Inference for Longitudinal Data: Inverse Probability Weighting versus Propensity Scores," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 1-24, March.
    18. Alessandra Mattei, 2009. "Estimating and using propensity score in presence of missing background data: an application to assess the impact of childbearing on wellbeing," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 18(2), pages 257-273, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Huber, Martin & Lechner, Michael & Wunsch, Conny, 2010. "How to Control for Many Covariates? Reliable Estimators Based on the Propensity Score," IZA Discussion Papers 5268, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Huber, Martin & Lechner, Michael & Wunsch, Conny, 2013. "The performance of estimators based on the propensity score," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 175(1), pages 1-21.
    3. Li Liang & Greene Tom, 2013. "A Weighting Analogue to Pair Matching in Propensity Score Analysis," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 9(2), pages 215-234, July.
    4. Frölich, Markus & Huber, Martin & Wiesenfarth, Manuel, 2017. "The finite sample performance of semi- and non-parametric estimators for treatment effects and policy evaluation," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 91-102.
    5. Difang Huang & Jiti Gao & Tatsushi Oka, 2022. "Semiparametric Single-Index Estimation for Average Treatment Effects," Papers 2206.08503, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2022.
    6. Arun Advani & Toru Kitagawa & Tymon Słoczyński, 2019. "Mostly harmless simulations? Using Monte Carlo studies for estimator selection," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(6), pages 893-910, September.
    7. Steven Lehrer & Gregory Kordas, 2013. "Matching using semiparametric propensity scores," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 13-45, February.
    8. Farrell, Max H., 2015. "Robust inference on average treatment effects with possibly more covariates than observations," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 189(1), pages 1-23.
    9. Zongwu Cai & Ying Fang & Ming Lin & Shengfang Tang, 2020. "Inferences for Partially Conditional Quantile Treatment Effect Model," WORKING PAPERS SERIES IN THEORETICAL AND APPLIED ECONOMICS 202005, University of Kansas, Department of Economics, revised Feb 2020.
    10. Martin Huber, 2014. "Treatment Evaluation in the Presence of Sample Selection," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(8), pages 869-905, November.
    11. Zongwu Cai & Ying Fang & Ming Lin & Shengfang Tang, 2021. "Estimating Partially Conditional Quantile Treatment Effects," WORKING PAPERS SERIES IN THEORETICAL AND APPLIED ECONOMICS 202103, University of Kansas, Department of Economics, revised Jan 2021.
    12. Shu Yang & Yunshu Zhang, 2023. "Multiply robust matching estimators of average and quantile treatment effects," Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, Danish Society for Theoretical Statistics;Finnish Statistical Society;Norwegian Statistical Association;Swedish Statistical Association, vol. 50(1), pages 235-265, March.
    13. Shengfang Tang & Zongwu Cai & Ying Fang & Ming Lin, 2019. "Testing Unconfoundedness Assumption Using Auxiliary Variables," WORKING PAPERS SERIES IN THEORETICAL AND APPLIED ECONOMICS 201905, University of Kansas, Department of Economics, revised Mar 2019.
    14. Arpino, Bruno & Mealli, Fabrizia, 2011. "The specification of the propensity score in multilevel observational studies," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 1770-1780, April.
    15. Matthew Blackwell & Anton Strezhnev, 2022. "Telescope matching for reducing model dependence in the estimation of the effects of time‐varying treatments: An application to negative advertising," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 185(1), pages 377-399, January.
    16. Kwun Chuen Gary Chan & Sheung Chi Phillip Yam & Zheng Zhang, 2016. "Globally efficient non-parametric inference of average treatment effects by empirical balancing calibration weighting," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 78(3), pages 673-700, June.
    17. Yihui He & Fang Han, 2023. "On propensity score matching with a diverging number of matches," Papers 2310.14142, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    18. Huber, Martin, 2019. "An introduction to flexible methods for policy evaluation," FSES Working Papers 504, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Freiburg/Fribourg Switzerland.
    19. Zeqin Liu & Zongwu Cai & Ying Fang & Ming Lin, 2019. "Statistical Analysis and Evaluation of Macroeconomic Policies: A Selective Review," WORKING PAPERS SERIES IN THEORETICAL AND APPLIED ECONOMICS 201904, University of Kansas, Department of Economics, revised Mar 2019.
    20. Dridi, Ichrak & Boughrara, Adel, 2023. "Flexible inflation targeting and stock market volatility: Evidence from emerging market economies," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:ijbist:v:8:y:2012:i:1:n:25. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.