A review of the use of propensity score methods with multiple treatment groups in the general internal medicine literature
- PMID: 37144449
- DOI: 10.1002/pds.5635
A review of the use of propensity score methods with multiple treatment groups in the general internal medicine literature
Abstract
Background: Propensity 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.
Methods: A 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.
Results: The 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.
Conclusions: Many 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.
Keywords: multiple groups; propensity score.
© 2023 The Authors. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
References
REFERENCES
-
- Rosenbaum P, Rubin D. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70(1):41-55. doi:10.1093/biomet/70.1.41
-
- Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivar Behav Res. 2011;46(3):399-424. doi:10.1080/00273171.2011.568786
-
- Deb S, Austin PC, Tu JV, et al. A review of propensity-score methods and their use in cardiovascular research. Can J Cardiol. 2016;32(2):259-265. doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2015.05.015
-
- Gorst-Rasmussen A, Lip GY, Bjerregaard LT. Rivaroxaban versus warfarin and dabigatran in atrial fibrillation: comparative effectiveness and safety in Danish routine care. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2016;25(11):1236-1244. doi:10.1002/pds.4034
-
- Li X, Pathadka S, Man KKC, et al. Comparative outcomes between direct oral anticoagulants, warfarin, and antiplatelet monotherapy among Chinese patients with atrial fibrillation: a population-based cohort study. Drug Saf. 2020;43(10):1023-1033. doi:10.1007/s40264-020-00961-0
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources