ArticleResearch square2026
Real-world performance of large-scale propensity score adjustment strategies: Matching, weighting, and stratification.
Article in Research square, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: 1.1Propensity score (PS) models are commonly used for addressing confounding in observational studies. Researchers are increasingly incorporating large numbers of covariates into PS models, using techniques like large-scale propensity score (LSPS) adjustment. It remains unclear if the inclusion of many covariates affects the subsequent choice of adjustment strategy. Methods: 1.2In this paper, we evaluate commonly used adjustment strategies using large-scale models, including matching, stratification, and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), to estimate treatment effects under a new-user cohort design. Evaluations employ real-world data across four national healthcare databases and incorporate 3,840 treatment effect estimates per model specification for 24 different treatment cohort comparisons against 160 negative control outcomes. We assess adjustment strategies for covariate balance between treatment cohorts and type-I and type-II error, mean-squared error, and precision of the adjusted effect estimate. Results: 1.3Across all model specifications, IPTW with symmetric Crump trimming and 1:1 matching perform best overall, achieving strong balance and low bias. Additionally, empirical calibration of effect estimates can substantially reduce differences between strategies. Discussion: 1.4No single strategy is clearly superior in all settings. We recommend incorporating the top-performing strategies at least as sensitivity analyses in studies even if researchers anticipate that some other strategy may excel due to expectation of their study's operating characteristics. We also recommend use of diagnostics like covariate balance to check strategy performance. Conclusion: 1.5IPTW with Crump trimming and 1:1 matching are strong default choices for large-scale PS adjustment, but strategy selection should be guided by study context and validated with balance and error diagnostics. We broadly recommend empirical calibration to reduce sensitivity to model choice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.