Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2015.16.2.286

Propensity Score Matching: A Conceptual Review for Radiology Researchers  

Baek, Seunghee (Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Asan Medical Center)
Park, Seong Ho (Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine)
Won, Eugene (Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Medical Center)
Park, Yu Rang (Office of Clinical Research Information, Asan Medical Center)
Kim, Hwa Jung (Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Asan Medical Center)
Publication Information
Korean Journal of Radiology / v.16, no.2, 2015 , pp. 286-296 More about this Journal
Abstract
The propensity score is defined as the probability of each individual study subject being assigned to a group of interest for comparison purposes. Propensity score adjustment is a method of ensuring an even distribution of confounders between groups, thereby increasing between group comparability. Propensity score analysis is therefore an increasingly applied statistical method in observational studies. The purpose of this article was to provide a step-by-step nonmathematical conceptual guide to propensity score analysis with particular emphasis on propensity score matching. A software program code used for propensity score matching was also presented.
Keywords
Propensity score; Matching; Observational study; Indication bias;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 5  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Primrose JN, Perera R, Gray A, Rose P, Fuller A, Corkhill A, et al. Effect of 3 to 5 years of scheduled CEA and CT follow-up to detect recurrence of colorectal cancer: the FACS randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2014;311:263-270   DOI
2 Kim K, Kim YH, Kim SY, Kim S, Lee YJ, Kim KP, et al. Lowdose abdominal CT for evaluating suspected appendicitis. N Engl J Med 2012;366:1596-1605   DOI
3 Trinchet JC, Chaffaut C, Bourcier V, Degos F, Henrion J, Fontaine H, et al. Ultrasonographic surveillance of hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis: a randomized trial comparing 3- and 6-month periodicities. Hepatology 2011;54:1987-1997   DOI
4 Fischer B, Lassen U, Mortensen J, Larsen S, Loft A, Bertelsen A, et al. Preoperative staging of lung cancer with combined PETCT. N Engl J Med 2009;361:32-39   DOI
5 Righini M, Le Gal G, Aujesky D, Roy PM, Sanchez O, Verschuren F, et al. Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism by multidetector CT alone or combined with venous ultrasonography of the leg: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2008;371:1343-1352   DOI
6 Cha DI, Lee MW, Rhim H, Choi D, Kim YS, Lim HK. Therapeutic efficacy and safety of percutaneous ethanol injection with or without combined radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinomas in high risk locations. Korean J Radiol 2013;14:240-247   DOI
7 Chung SY, Park SH, Lee SS, Lee JH, Kim AY, Park SK, et al. Comparison between CT colonography and double-contrast barium enema for colonic evaluation in patients with renal insufficiency. Korean J Radiol 2012;13:290-299   DOI
8 Kim JW, Shin SS, Kim JK, Choi SK, Heo SH, Lim HS, et al. Radiofrequency ablation combined with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for the treatment of single hepatocellular carcinoma of 2 to 5 cm in diameter: comparison with surgical resection. Korean J Radiol 2013;14:626-635   DOI
9 Lee SH, Chung CH, Jung SH, Lee JW, Shin JH, Ko KY, et al. Midterm outcomes of open surgical repair compared with thoracic endovascular repair for isolated descending thoracic aortic disease. Korean J Radiol 2012;13:476-482   DOI
10 Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983;70:41-55   DOI
11 Choi GH, Shim JH, Kim MJ, Ryu MH, Ryoo BY, Kang YK, et al. Sorafenib alone versus sorafenib combined with transarterial chemoembolization for advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: results of propensity score analyses. Radiology 2013;269:603-611   DOI
12 McDonald JS, McDonald RJ, Fan J, Kallmes DF, Lanzino G, Cloft HJ. Comparative effectiveness of ruptured cerebral aneurysm therapies: propensity score analysis of clipping versus coiling. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:164-169   DOI
13 McDonald RJ, McDonald JS, Bida JP, Carter RE, Fleming CJ, Misra S, et al. Intravenous contrast material-induced nephropathy: causal or coincident phenomenon? Radiology 2013;267:106-118   DOI
14 de Haan MC, Boellaard TN, Bossuyt PM, Stoker J. Colon distension, perceived burden and side-effects of CTcolonography for screening using hyoscine butylbromide or glucagon hydrochloride as bowel relaxant. Eur J Radiol 2012;81:e910-e916   DOI
15 Davenport MS, Khalatbari S, Cohan RH, Dillman JR, Myles JD, Ellis JH. Contrast material-induced nephrotoxicity and intravenous low-osmolality iodinated contrast material: risk stratification by using estimated glomerular filtration rate. Radiology 2013;268:719-728   DOI
16 Davenport MS, Khalatbari S, Dillman JR, Cohan RH, Caoili EM, Ellis JH. Contrast material-induced nephrotoxicity and intravenous low-osmolality iodinated contrast material. Radiology 2013;267:94-105   DOI
17 Takuma Y, Takabatake H, Morimoto Y, Toshikuni N, Kayahara T, Makino Y, et al. Comparison of combined transcatheter arterial chemoembolization and radiofrequency ablation with surgical resection by using propensity score matching in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma within Milan criteria. Radiology 2013;269:927-937   DOI
18 McDonald RJ, McDonald JS, Kallmes DF, Carter RE. Behind the numbers: propensity score analysis-a primer for the diagnostic radiologist. Radiology 2013;269:640-645   DOI
19 Altman DG. The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ 1994;308:283-284   DOI
20 Salas M, Hofman A, Stricker BH. Confounding by indication: an example of variation in the use of epidemiologic terminology. Am J Epidemiol 1999;149:981-983   DOI
21 Sica GT. Bias in research studies. Radiology 2006;238:780-789   DOI
22 Gunderman RB. Biases in radiologic reasoning. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;192:561-564   DOI
23 Halpern EF. Behind the numbers: inverse probability weighting. Radiology 2014;271:625-628   DOI
24 Ladapo JA, Blecker S, Elashoff MR, Federspiel JJ, Vieira DL, Sharma G, et al. Clinical implications of referral bias in the diagnostic performance of exercise testing for coronary artery disease. J Am Heart Assoc 2013;2:e000505   DOI
25 Rubin DB, Thomas N. Matching using estimated propensity scores: relating theory to practice. Biometrics 1996;52:249-264   DOI
26 Yang HJ, Lee JH, Lee DH, Yu SJ, Kim YJ, Yoon JH, et al. Small single-nodule hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison of transarterial chemoembolization, radiofrequency ablation, and hepatic resection by using inverse probability weighting. Radiology 2014;271:909-918   DOI
27 Kurth T, Walker AM, Glynn RJ, Chan KA, Gaziano JM, Berger K, et al. Results of multivariable logistic regression, propensity matching, propensity adjustment, and propensity-based weighting under conditions of nonuniform effect. Am J Epidemiol 2006;163:262-270   DOI
28 McAfee AT, Ming EE, Seeger JD, Quinn SG, Ng EW, Danielson JD, et al. The comparative safety of rosuvastatin: a retrospective matched cohort study in over 48,000 initiators of statin therapy. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2006;15:444- 453   DOI
29 Austin PC. A critical appraisal of propensity-score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003. Stat Med 2008;27:2037-2049   DOI
30 Austin PC. Propensity-score matching in the cardiovascular surgery literature from 2004 to 2006: a systematic review and suggestions for improvement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2007;134:1128-1135   DOI
31 Gu XS, Rosenbaum PR. Comparison of multivariate matching methods: structures, distances, and algorithms. J Comput Graph Stat 1993;2:405-420
32 Lee J, Cho JY, Lee HJ, Jeong YY, Kim CK, Park BK, et al. Contrast-induced nephropathy in patients undergoing intravenous contrast-enhanced computed tomography in Korea: a multi-institutional study in 101487 patients. Korean J Radiol 2014;15:456-463   DOI
33 Ho DE, Imai K, King G, Stuart EA. Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political Analysis 2007;15:199-236   DOI
34 Rubin DB. Using multivariate matched sampling and regression adjustment to control bias in observational studies. J Am Stat Assoc 1979;74:318-328
35 Austin PC, Grootendorst P, Anderson GM. A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study. Stat Med 2007;26:734-753   DOI
36 Rosenberger WF, Lachin JM. Randomization and the clinical trial. In: Rosenberger WF, Lachin JM, eds. Randomization in clinical trials: theory and practice, 1st ed. New York: Wiley- Interscience, 2002:1-14
37 Psaty BM, Siscovick DS. Minimizing bias due to confounding by indication in comparative effectiveness research: the importance of restriction. JAMA 2010;304:897-898   DOI
38 Kim DH, Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ, Leung WK, Winter TC, Hinshaw JL, et al. CT colonography versus colonoscopy for the detection of advanced neoplasia. N Engl J Med 2007;357:1403-1412   DOI
39 McDonald JS, Kallmes DF, Lanzino G, Cloft HJ. Percutaneous closure devices do not reduce the risk of major access site complications in patients undergoing elective carotid stent placement. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2013;24:1057-1062   DOI
40 Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S, Rothman KJ, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Sturmer T. Variable selection for propensity score models. Am J Epidemiol 2006;163:1149-1156   DOI
41 Austin PC. Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharm Stat 2011;10:150-161   DOI
42 Hill J. Discussion of research using propensity-score matching: comments on 'A critical appraisal of propensityscore matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003' by Peter Austin, Statistics in Medicine. Stat Med 2008;27:2055-2061; discussion 2066-2069   DOI