A review of the use of propensity score methods with multiple treatment groups in the general internal medicine literature

Author:

Shurrab Mohammed1234ORCID,Ko Dennis T.345,Jackevicius Cynthia A.3467,Tu Karen38910,Middleton Allan1,Michael Faith1,Austin Peter C.34

Affiliation:

1. Cardiology Department, Health Sciences North Northern Ontario School of Medicine University Sudbury Ontario Canada

2. Health Sciences North Research Institute Sudbury Ontario Canada

3. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation University of Toronto Toronto Ontario Canada

4. ICES Toronto and North Ontario Canada

5. Division of Cardiology, Schulich Heart Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre University of Toronto Toronto Ontario Canada

6. Department of Pharmacy Practice and Administration, College of Pharmacy Western University of Health Sciences Pomona California USA

7. Pharmacy Department VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System Los Angeles California USA

8. North York General Hospital Toronto Ontario Canada

9. Department of Family and Community Medicine University of Toronto Toronto Ontario Canada

10. Toronto Western Hospital Family Health Team University Health Network Toronto Ontario Canada

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundPropensity score (PS) methods with two treatment groups (e.g., treated vs. control) is a well‐established technique for reducing the effects of confounding in nonrandomized studies. However, researchers are often interested in comparing multiple interventions. PS methods have been modified to incorporate multiple exposures. We described available techniques for PS methods in multicategory exposures (≥3 groups) and examined their use in the medical literature.MethodsA comprehensive search was conducted for studies published in PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and Web of Science until February 27, 2023. We included studies using PS methods for multiple groups in general internal medicine research.ResultsThe literature search yielded 4088 studies (2616 from PubMed, 86 from Embase, 85 from Google Scholar, 1671 from Web of Science, five from other sources). In total, 264 studies using PS method for multiple groups were identified; 61 studies were on general internal medicine topics and included. The most commonly used method was that of McCaffrey et al., which was used in 26 studies (43%), where the Toolkit for Weighting and Analysis of Nonequivalent Groups (TWANG) method and corresponding inverse probabilities of treatment weights were estimated via generalized boosted models. The next most commonly used method was pairwise propensity‐matched comparisons, which was used in 20 studies (33%). The method by Imbens et al. using a generalized propensity score was implemented in six studies (10%). Four studies (7%) used a conditional probability of being in a particular group given a set of observed baseline covariates where a multiple propensity score was estimated using a non‐parsimonious multinomial logistic regression model. Four studies (7%) used a technique that estimates generalized propensity scores and then creates 1:1:1 matched sets, and one study (2%) used the matching weight method.ConclusionsMany propensity score methods for multiple groups have been adopted in the literature. The TWANG method is the most commonly used method in the general medical literature.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Pharmacology (medical),Epidemiology

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3