Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16632131›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical epidemiology2006

A review of the application of propensity score methods yielded increasing use, advantages in specific settings, but not substantially different estimates compared with conventional multivariable methods.

Til Stürmer, Manisha Joshi, Robert J Glynn, Jerry Avorn, Kenneth J Rothman, Sebastian Schneeweiss

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 253 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
253citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

253 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

193 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Til StürmerDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 1620 Tremont Street, Suite 3030, Boston, MA 02120, USA. til.sturmer@post.harvard.edu
Manisha Joshi
Robert J Glynn
Jerry Avorn
Kenneth J Rothman
Sebastian Schneeweiss

Funding

Propensity Scores and Preventive Drug Use in the ElderlyR01AG023178 · NIA · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI STURMER, TIL · 2005 to 2014
$2.7M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG023178
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivePropensity score (PS) analyses attempt to control for confounding in nonexperimental studies by adjusting for the likelihood that a given patient is exposed. Such analyses have been proposed to address confounding by indication, but there is little empirical evidence that they achieve better control than conventional multivariate outcome modeling. STUDY DESIGN AND

methodsUsing PubMed and Science Citation Index, we assessed the use of propensity scores over time and critically evaluated studies published through 2003.

resultsUse of propensity scores increased from a total of 8 reports before 1998 to 71 in 2003. Most of the 177 published studies abstracted assessed medications (N=60) or surgical interventions (N=51), mainly in cardiology and cardiac surgery (N=90). Whether PS methods or conventional outcome models were used to control for confounding had little effect on results in those studies in which such comparison was possible. Only 9 of 69 studies (13%) had an effect estimate that differed by more than 20% from that obtained with a conventional outcome model in all PS analyses presented.

conclusionsPublication of results based on propensity score methods has increased dramatically, but there is little evidence that these methods yield substantially different estimates compared with conventional multivariable methods.

Indexed as

BiasConfounding Factors, EpidemiologicData Interpretation, StatisticalCardiac Surgical ProceduresDatabases, BibliographicEpidemiologic MethodsHeart DiseasesHumansModels, StatisticalResearch DesignTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID16632131
PMCPMC1448214

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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 Socratic graph.