Skip to main content
Erschienen in: European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery 3/2018

24.03.2017 | Original Article

A systematic review of propensity score methods in the acute care surgery literature: avoiding the pitfalls and proposing a set of reporting guidelines

verfasst von: T. L. Zakrison, P. C. Austin, V. A. McCredie

Erschienen in: European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery | Ausgabe 3/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Propensity score methods are techniques commonly employed in observational research to account for confounding when estimating the effects of treatments and exposures. These methods have been increasingly employed in the acute care surgery literature in an attempt to infer causality; however, the adequacy of reporting and the appropriateness of statistical analyses when using propensity score matching remain unclear.

Objectives

The goal of this systematic review is to assess the adequacy of reporting of propensity score methods, with an emphasis on propensity score matching (to assess balance and the use of appropriate statistical tests), in acute care surgery (ACS) studies and to provide suggestions for improvement for junior investigators.

Methods

We searched three databases, and other relevant literature (from January 2005 to June 2015) to identify observational studies within the ACS literature using propensity score methods (PROSPERO No: CRD42016036432). Two reviewers extracted data and assessed the quality of the studies retrieved by reviewing the adequacy of both overall reporting and of the propensity score matching methods used.

Results

A total of 49/71 (69%) of studies adequately reported propensity score methods overall. Matching was the most common propensity score method used in 46/71 (65%) studies, with 36/46 (78%) studies reporting matching methods adequately. Only 19/46 (41%) of matching studies reported the balance of baseline characteristics between treated and untreated subjects while 6/46 (13%) used correct statistical methods to assess balance. There were 35/46 (76%) of matching studies that explicitly used statistical methods appropriate for the analysis of matched data when estimating the treatment effect and its statistical significance.

Conclusion

We have proposed reporting guidelines for the use of propensity score methods in the acute care surgery literature. This is to help investigators improve the adequacy of reporting and statistical analyses when using observational data to estimate effects of treatments and exposures.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat 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. CrossRef 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. CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat McMurry TL, Hu Y, Blackstone EH, Kozower BD. Propensity scores: methods, considerations, and applications in the. Journal of Thoracic Cardiovascular Surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;150(1):14–9. CrossRefPubMed McMurry TL, Hu Y, Blackstone EH, Kozower BD. Propensity scores: methods, considerations, and applications in the. Journal of Thoracic Cardiovascular Surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;150(1):14–9. CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Luo Z, Gardiner JC, Bradley CJ. Applying propensity score methods in medical research: pitfalls and prospects. Med Care Res Rev. 2010;67(5):528–54. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Luo Z, Gardiner JC, Bradley CJ. Applying propensity score methods in medical research: pitfalls and prospects. Med Care Res Rev. 2010;67(5):528–54. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Austin PC. The relative ability of different propensity score methods to balance measured covariates between treated and untreated subjects in observational studies. Med Decis Mak. 2009;29(6):661–77. CrossRef Austin PC. The relative ability of different propensity score methods to balance measured covariates between treated and untreated subjects in observational studies. Med Decis Mak. 2009;29(6):661–77. CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Austin PC. A critical appraisal of propensity-score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003. Stat Med. 2008;27(12):2037–49. CrossRefPubMed Austin PC. A critical appraisal of propensity-score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003. Stat Med. 2008;27(12):2037–49. CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Austin PC. Primer on statistical interpretation or methods report card on propensity-score matching in the cardiology literature from 2004 to 2006: a systematic review. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2008;1(1):62–7. CrossRefPubMed Austin PC. Primer on statistical interpretation or methods report card on propensity-score matching in the cardiology literature from 2004 to 2006: a systematic review. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2008;1(1):62–7. CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat 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(5):1128–35. CrossRefPubMed 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(5):1128–35. CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. New York: Wiley; 2011. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. New York: Wiley; 2011.
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Panic N, Leoncini E, de Belvis G, Ricciardi W, Boccia S. Evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e83138. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Panic N, Leoncini E, de Belvis G, Ricciardi W, Boccia S. Evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e83138. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Gayat E, Pirracchio R, Resche-Rigon M, Mebazaa A, Mary JY, Porcher R. Propensity scores in intensive care and anaesthesiology literature: a systematic review. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36(12):1993–2003. CrossRefPubMed Gayat E, Pirracchio R, Resche-Rigon M, Mebazaa A, Mary JY, Porcher R. Propensity scores in intensive care and anaesthesiology literature: a systematic review. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36(12):1993–2003. CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Inoue J, Shiraishi A, Yoshiyuki A, Haruta K, Matsui H, Otomo Y. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta might be dangerous in patients with severe torso trauma: a propensity score analysis. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016;80(4):559–67. CrossRefPubMed Inoue J, Shiraishi A, Yoshiyuki A, Haruta K, Matsui H, Otomo Y. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta might be dangerous in patients with severe torso trauma: a propensity score analysis. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016;80(4):559–67. CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat 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(4):734–53. CrossRefPubMed 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(4):734–53. CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat 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(2):150–61. CrossRefPubMed 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(2):150–61. CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Austin PC. A comparison of 12 algorithms for matching on the propensity score. Stat Med. 2014;33(6):1057–69. CrossRefPubMed Austin PC. A comparison of 12 algorithms for matching on the propensity score. Stat Med. 2014;33(6):1057–69. CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Austin PC. Some methods of propensity-score matching had superior performance to others: results of an empirical investigation and Monte Carlo simulations. Biom J. 2009;51(1):171–84. CrossRefPubMed Austin PC. Some methods of propensity-score matching had superior performance to others: results of an empirical investigation and Monte Carlo simulations. Biom J. 2009;51(1):171–84. CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Austin PC. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios. Stat Med. 2007;26(16):3078–94. CrossRefPubMed Austin PC. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios. Stat Med. 2007;26(16):3078–94. CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Austin PC. The use of propensity score methods with survival or time-to-event outcomes: reporting measures of effect similar to those used in randomized experiments. Stat Med. 2014;33(7):1242–58. CrossRefPubMed Austin PC. The use of propensity score methods with survival or time-to-event outcomes: reporting measures of effect similar to those used in randomized experiments. Stat Med. 2014;33(7):1242–58. CrossRefPubMed
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Morgan SL, Todd JL. A diagnostic routine for the detection of consequential heterogeneity of causal effects. Sociol Methodol. 2008;38:231–81. CrossRef Morgan SL, Todd JL. A diagnostic routine for the detection of consequential heterogeneity of causal effects. Sociol Methodol. 2008;38:231–81. CrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med. 2009;28(25):3083–107. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med. 2009;28(25):3083–107. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Mitra R, Reiter JP. A comparison of two methods of estimating propensity scores after multiple imputation. Stat Methods Med Res. 2016;25(1):188–204. CrossRefPubMed Mitra R, Reiter JP. A comparison of two methods of estimating propensity scores after multiple imputation. Stat Methods Med Res. 2016;25(1):188–204. CrossRefPubMed
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70(1):41–55. CrossRef Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70(1):41–55. CrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Rassen JA, Shelat AA, Myers J, Glynn RJ, Rothman KJ, Schneeweiss S. One-to-many propensity score matching in cohort studies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21 (Suppl 2 ):69–80. CrossRefPubMed Rassen JA, Shelat AA, Myers J, Glynn RJ, Rothman KJ, Schneeweiss S. One-to-many propensity score matching in cohort studies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21 (Suppl 2 ):69–80. CrossRefPubMed
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Austin PC, Mamdani MM, Stukel TA, Anderson GM, Tu JV. The use of the propensity score for estimating treatment effects: administrative versus clinical data. Stat Med. 2005;24(10):1563–78. CrossRefPubMed Austin PC, Mamdani MM, Stukel TA, Anderson GM, Tu JV. The use of the propensity score for estimating treatment effects: administrative versus clinical data. Stat Med. 2005;24(10):1563–78. CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
A systematic review of propensity score methods in the acute care surgery literature: avoiding the pitfalls and proposing a set of reporting guidelines
verfasst von
T. L. Zakrison
P. C. Austin
V. A. McCredie
Publikationsdatum
24.03.2017
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery / Ausgabe 3/2018
Print ISSN: 1863-9933
Elektronische ISSN: 1863-9941
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-017-0786-6

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2018

European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery 3/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie. Erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, DICOM-Daten, Videos und Abbildungen. » Jetzt entdecken

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.