Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Aug 15;41(18):3612-3626.
doi: 10.1002/sim.9437. Epub 2022 May 23.

Propensity score methods for observational studies with clustered data: A review

Affiliations
Review

Propensity score methods for observational studies with clustered data: A review

Ting-Hsuan Chang et al. Stat Med. .

Abstract

Propensity score methods are a popular approach to mitigating confounding bias when estimating causal effects in observational studies. When study units are clustered (eg, patients nested within health systems), additional challenges arise such as accounting for unmeasured confounding at multiple levels and dependence between units within the same cluster. While clustered observational data are widely used to draw causal inferences in many fields, including medicine and healthcare, extensions of propensity score methods to clustered settings are still a relatively new area of research. This article presents a framework for estimating causal effects using propensity scores when study units are nested within clusters and are nonrandomly assigned to treatment conditions. We emphasize the need for investigators to examine the nature of the clustering, among other properties, of the observational data at hand in order to guide their choice of causal estimands and the corresponding propensity score approach.

Keywords: causal inference; clustered data; multilevel; observational studies; propensity score.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. VanderWeele TJ. Confounding and effect modification: distribution and measure. Epidemiol Method. 2012;1(1):55‐82. doi:10.1515/2161-962X.1004 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Stürmer T, Joshi M, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Rothman KJ, Schneeweiss S. 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. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(5):437.e1‐437.e24. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.07.004 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Li F, Zaslavsky AM, Landrum MB. Propensity score weighting with multilevel data. Stat Med. 2013;32(19):3373‐3387. doi:10.1002/sim.5786 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rubin DB. The design versus the analysis of observational studies for causal effects: parallels with the design of randomized trials. Stat Med. 2007;26(1):20‐36. doi:10.1002/sim.2739 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Greifer N, Stuart EA. Matching methods for confounder adjustment: an addition to the epidemiologist's toolbox. Epidemiol Rev. 2022;43(1):118‐129. doi:10.1093/epirev/mxab003 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources