Double-adjustment in propensity score matching analysis: choosing a threshold for considering residual imbalance

Background Double-adjustment can be used to remove confounding if imbalance exists after propensity score (PS) matching. However, it is not always possible to include all covariates in adjustment. We aimed to find the optimal imbalance threshold for entering covariates into regression. Methods We co...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Nguyen, Tri-Long [verfasserIn] Collins, Gary S. Spence, Jessica Daurès, Jean-Pierre Devereaux, P. J. Landais, Paul Le Manach, Yannick

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2017

Schlagwörter:	Causal inference Propensity score Covariate balance Confounding

Anmerkung:	© The Author(s). 2017

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: BMC medical research methodology - London : BioMed Central, 2001, 17(2017), 1 vom: 28. Apr.
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:17 ; year:2017 ; number:1 ; day:28 ; month:04

Links:	Volltext

DOI / URN:	10.1186/s12874-017-0338-0

Katalog-ID:	SPR027372782

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	SPR027372782
003	DE-627
005	20230520010508.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	201007s2017 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1186/s12874-017-0338-0 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)SPR027372782
035			\|a (SPR)s12874-017-0338-0-e
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
100	1		\|a Nguyen, Tri-Long \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Double-adjustment in propensity score matching analysis: choosing a threshold for considering residual imbalance
264		1	\|c 2017
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
500			\|a © The Author(s). 2017
520			\|a Background Double-adjustment can be used to remove confounding if imbalance exists after propensity score (PS) matching. However, it is not always possible to include all covariates in adjustment. We aimed to find the optimal imbalance threshold for entering covariates into regression. Methods We conducted a series of Monte Carlo simulations on virtual populations of 5,000 subjects. We performed PS 1:1 nearest-neighbor matching on each sample. We calculated standardized mean differences across groups to detect any remaining imbalance in the matched samples. We examined 25 thresholds (from 0.01 to 0.25, stepwise 0.01) for considering residual imbalance. The treatment effect was estimated using logistic regression that contained only those covariates considered to be unbalanced by these thresholds. Results We showed that regression adjustment could dramatically remove residual confounding bias when it included all of the covariates with a standardized difference greater than 0.10. The additional benefit was negligible when we also adjusted for covariates with less imbalance. We found that the mean squared error of the estimates was minimized under the same conditions. Conclusion If covariate balance is not achieved, we recommend reiterating PS modeling until standardized differences below 0.10 are achieved on most covariates. In case of remaining imbalance, a double adjustment might be worth considering.
650		4	\|a Causal inference \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Propensity score \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Covariate balance \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Confounding \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
700	1		\|a Collins, Gary S. \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Spence, Jessica \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Daurès, Jean-Pierre \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Devereaux, P. J. \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Landais, Paul \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Le Manach, Yannick \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|t BMC medical research methodology \|d London : BioMed Central, 2001 \|g 17(2017), 1 vom: 28. Apr. \|w (DE-627)326643818 \|w (DE-600)2041362-2 \|x 1471-2288 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:17 \|g year:2017 \|g number:1 \|g day:28 \|g month:04
856	4	0	\|u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0338-0 \|z kostenfrei \|3 Volltext
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_SPRINGER
912			\|a SSG-OLC-PHA
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_702
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2001
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2006
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2008
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2009
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2010
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2011
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2015
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2020
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2021
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2025
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2031
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2038
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2044
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2048
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2050
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2055
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2056
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2057
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2061
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2113
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2190
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 17 \|j 2017 \|e 1 \|b 28 \|c 04

Indexfelder

author_variant	t l n tln g s c gs gsc j s js j p d jpd p j d pj pjd p l pl m y l my myl
matchkey_str	article:14712288:2017----::obedutetnrpniycrmthnaayicosnahehlfro
hierarchy_sort_str	2017
publishDate	2017
allfields	10.1186/s12874-017-0338-0 doi (DE-627)SPR027372782 (SPR)s12874-017-0338-0-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Nguyen, Tri-Long verfasserin aut Double-adjustment in propensity score matching analysis: choosing a threshold for considering residual imbalance 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2017 Background Double-adjustment can be used to remove confounding if imbalance exists after propensity score (PS) matching. However, it is not always possible to include all covariates in adjustment. We aimed to find the optimal imbalance threshold for entering covariates into regression. Methods We conducted a series of Monte Carlo simulations on virtual populations of 5,000 subjects. We performed PS 1:1 nearest-neighbor matching on each sample. We calculated standardized mean differences across groups to detect any remaining imbalance in the matched samples. We examined 25 thresholds (from 0.01 to 0.25, stepwise 0.01) for considering residual imbalance. The treatment effect was estimated using logistic regression that contained only those covariates considered to be unbalanced by these thresholds. Results We showed that regression adjustment could dramatically remove residual confounding bias when it included all of the covariates with a standardized difference greater than 0.10. The additional benefit was negligible when we also adjusted for covariates with less imbalance. We found that the mean squared error of the estimates was minimized under the same conditions. Conclusion If covariate balance is not achieved, we recommend reiterating PS modeling until standardized differences below 0.10 are achieved on most covariates. In case of remaining imbalance, a double adjustment might be worth considering. Causal inference (dpeaa)DE-He213 Propensity score (dpeaa)DE-He213 Covariate balance (dpeaa)DE-He213 Confounding (dpeaa)DE-He213 Collins, Gary S. aut Spence, Jessica aut Daurès, Jean-Pierre aut Devereaux, P. J. aut Landais, Paul aut Le Manach, Yannick aut Enthalten in BMC medical research methodology London : BioMed Central, 2001 17(2017), 1 vom: 28. Apr. (DE-627)326643818 (DE-600)2041362-2 1471-2288 nnns volume:17 year:2017 number:1 day:28 month:04 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0338-0 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 17 2017 1 28 04
spelling	10.1186/s12874-017-0338-0 doi (DE-627)SPR027372782 (SPR)s12874-017-0338-0-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Nguyen, Tri-Long verfasserin aut Double-adjustment in propensity score matching analysis: choosing a threshold for considering residual imbalance 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2017 Background Double-adjustment can be used to remove confounding if imbalance exists after propensity score (PS) matching. However, it is not always possible to include all covariates in adjustment. We aimed to find the optimal imbalance threshold for entering covariates into regression. Methods We conducted a series of Monte Carlo simulations on virtual populations of 5,000 subjects. We performed PS 1:1 nearest-neighbor matching on each sample. We calculated standardized mean differences across groups to detect any remaining imbalance in the matched samples. We examined 25 thresholds (from 0.01 to 0.25, stepwise 0.01) for considering residual imbalance. The treatment effect was estimated using logistic regression that contained only those covariates considered to be unbalanced by these thresholds. Results We showed that regression adjustment could dramatically remove residual confounding bias when it included all of the covariates with a standardized difference greater than 0.10. The additional benefit was negligible when we also adjusted for covariates with less imbalance. We found that the mean squared error of the estimates was minimized under the same conditions. Conclusion If covariate balance is not achieved, we recommend reiterating PS modeling until standardized differences below 0.10 are achieved on most covariates. In case of remaining imbalance, a double adjustment might be worth considering. Causal inference (dpeaa)DE-He213 Propensity score (dpeaa)DE-He213 Covariate balance (dpeaa)DE-He213 Confounding (dpeaa)DE-He213 Collins, Gary S. aut Spence, Jessica aut Daurès, Jean-Pierre aut Devereaux, P. J. aut Landais, Paul aut Le Manach, Yannick aut Enthalten in BMC medical research methodology London : BioMed Central, 2001 17(2017), 1 vom: 28. Apr. (DE-627)326643818 (DE-600)2041362-2 1471-2288 nnns volume:17 year:2017 number:1 day:28 month:04 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0338-0 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 17 2017 1 28 04
allfields_unstemmed	10.1186/s12874-017-0338-0 doi (DE-627)SPR027372782 (SPR)s12874-017-0338-0-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Nguyen, Tri-Long verfasserin aut Double-adjustment in propensity score matching analysis: choosing a threshold for considering residual imbalance 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2017 Background Double-adjustment can be used to remove confounding if imbalance exists after propensity score (PS) matching. However, it is not always possible to include all covariates in adjustment. We aimed to find the optimal imbalance threshold for entering covariates into regression. Methods We conducted a series of Monte Carlo simulations on virtual populations of 5,000 subjects. We performed PS 1:1 nearest-neighbor matching on each sample. We calculated standardized mean differences across groups to detect any remaining imbalance in the matched samples. We examined 25 thresholds (from 0.01 to 0.25, stepwise 0.01) for considering residual imbalance. The treatment effect was estimated using logistic regression that contained only those covariates considered to be unbalanced by these thresholds. Results We showed that regression adjustment could dramatically remove residual confounding bias when it included all of the covariates with a standardized difference greater than 0.10. The additional benefit was negligible when we also adjusted for covariates with less imbalance. We found that the mean squared error of the estimates was minimized under the same conditions. Conclusion If covariate balance is not achieved, we recommend reiterating PS modeling until standardized differences below 0.10 are achieved on most covariates. In case of remaining imbalance, a double adjustment might be worth considering. Causal inference (dpeaa)DE-He213 Propensity score (dpeaa)DE-He213 Covariate balance (dpeaa)DE-He213 Confounding (dpeaa)DE-He213 Collins, Gary S. aut Spence, Jessica aut Daurès, Jean-Pierre aut Devereaux, P. J. aut Landais, Paul aut Le Manach, Yannick aut Enthalten in BMC medical research methodology London : BioMed Central, 2001 17(2017), 1 vom: 28. Apr. (DE-627)326643818 (DE-600)2041362-2 1471-2288 nnns volume:17 year:2017 number:1 day:28 month:04 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0338-0 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 17 2017 1 28 04
allfieldsGer	10.1186/s12874-017-0338-0 doi (DE-627)SPR027372782 (SPR)s12874-017-0338-0-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Nguyen, Tri-Long verfasserin aut Double-adjustment in propensity score matching analysis: choosing a threshold for considering residual imbalance 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2017 Background Double-adjustment can be used to remove confounding if imbalance exists after propensity score (PS) matching. However, it is not always possible to include all covariates in adjustment. We aimed to find the optimal imbalance threshold for entering covariates into regression. Methods We conducted a series of Monte Carlo simulations on virtual populations of 5,000 subjects. We performed PS 1:1 nearest-neighbor matching on each sample. We calculated standardized mean differences across groups to detect any remaining imbalance in the matched samples. We examined 25 thresholds (from 0.01 to 0.25, stepwise 0.01) for considering residual imbalance. The treatment effect was estimated using logistic regression that contained only those covariates considered to be unbalanced by these thresholds. Results We showed that regression adjustment could dramatically remove residual confounding bias when it included all of the covariates with a standardized difference greater than 0.10. The additional benefit was negligible when we also adjusted for covariates with less imbalance. We found that the mean squared error of the estimates was minimized under the same conditions. Conclusion If covariate balance is not achieved, we recommend reiterating PS modeling until standardized differences below 0.10 are achieved on most covariates. In case of remaining imbalance, a double adjustment might be worth considering. Causal inference (dpeaa)DE-He213 Propensity score (dpeaa)DE-He213 Covariate balance (dpeaa)DE-He213 Confounding (dpeaa)DE-He213 Collins, Gary S. aut Spence, Jessica aut Daurès, Jean-Pierre aut Devereaux, P. J. aut Landais, Paul aut Le Manach, Yannick aut Enthalten in BMC medical research methodology London : BioMed Central, 2001 17(2017), 1 vom: 28. Apr. (DE-627)326643818 (DE-600)2041362-2 1471-2288 nnns volume:17 year:2017 number:1 day:28 month:04 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0338-0 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 17 2017 1 28 04
allfieldsSound	10.1186/s12874-017-0338-0 doi (DE-627)SPR027372782 (SPR)s12874-017-0338-0-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Nguyen, Tri-Long verfasserin aut Double-adjustment in propensity score matching analysis: choosing a threshold for considering residual imbalance 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2017 Background Double-adjustment can be used to remove confounding if imbalance exists after propensity score (PS) matching. However, it is not always possible to include all covariates in adjustment. We aimed to find the optimal imbalance threshold for entering covariates into regression. Methods We conducted a series of Monte Carlo simulations on virtual populations of 5,000 subjects. We performed PS 1:1 nearest-neighbor matching on each sample. We calculated standardized mean differences across groups to detect any remaining imbalance in the matched samples. We examined 25 thresholds (from 0.01 to 0.25, stepwise 0.01) for considering residual imbalance. The treatment effect was estimated using logistic regression that contained only those covariates considered to be unbalanced by these thresholds. Results We showed that regression adjustment could dramatically remove residual confounding bias when it included all of the covariates with a standardized difference greater than 0.10. The additional benefit was negligible when we also adjusted for covariates with less imbalance. We found that the mean squared error of the estimates was minimized under the same conditions. Conclusion If covariate balance is not achieved, we recommend reiterating PS modeling until standardized differences below 0.10 are achieved on most covariates. In case of remaining imbalance, a double adjustment might be worth considering. Causal inference (dpeaa)DE-He213 Propensity score (dpeaa)DE-He213 Covariate balance (dpeaa)DE-He213 Confounding (dpeaa)DE-He213 Collins, Gary S. aut Spence, Jessica aut Daurès, Jean-Pierre aut Devereaux, P. J. aut Landais, Paul aut Le Manach, Yannick aut Enthalten in BMC medical research methodology London : BioMed Central, 2001 17(2017), 1 vom: 28. Apr. (DE-627)326643818 (DE-600)2041362-2 1471-2288 nnns volume:17 year:2017 number:1 day:28 month:04 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0338-0 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 17 2017 1 28 04
language	English
source	Enthalten in BMC medical research methodology 17(2017), 1 vom: 28. Apr. volume:17 year:2017 number:1 day:28 month:04
sourceStr	Enthalten in BMC medical research methodology 17(2017), 1 vom: 28. Apr. volume:17 year:2017 number:1 day:28 month:04
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Causal inference Propensity score Covariate balance Confounding
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	BMC medical research methodology
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Nguyen, Tri-Long @@aut@@ Collins, Gary S. @@aut@@ Spence, Jessica @@aut@@ Daurès, Jean-Pierre @@aut@@ Devereaux, P. J. @@aut@@ Landais, Paul @@aut@@ Le Manach, Yannick @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2017-04-28T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	326643818
id	SPR027372782
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR027372782</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230520010508.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2017 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12874-017-0338-0</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR027372782</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12874-017-0338-0-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nguyen, Tri-Long</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Double-adjustment in propensity score matching analysis: choosing a threshold for considering residual imbalance</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s). 2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Double-adjustment can be used to remove confounding if imbalance exists after propensity score (PS) matching. However, it is not always possible to include all covariates in adjustment. We aimed to find the optimal imbalance threshold for entering covariates into regression. Methods We conducted a series of Monte Carlo simulations on virtual populations of 5,000 subjects. We performed PS 1:1 nearest-neighbor matching on each sample. We calculated standardized mean differences across groups to detect any remaining imbalance in the matched samples. We examined 25 thresholds (from 0.01 to 0.25, stepwise 0.01) for considering residual imbalance. The treatment effect was estimated using logistic regression that contained only those covariates considered to be unbalanced by these thresholds. Results We showed that regression adjustment could dramatically remove residual confounding bias when it included all of the covariates with a standardized difference greater than 0.10. The additional benefit was negligible when we also adjusted for covariates with less imbalance. We found that the mean squared error of the estimates was minimized under the same conditions. Conclusion If covariate balance is not achieved, we recommend reiterating PS modeling until standardized differences below 0.10 are achieved on most covariates. In case of remaining imbalance, a double adjustment might be worth considering.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Causal inference</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Propensity score</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Covariate balance</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Confounding</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Collins, Gary S.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Spence, Jessica</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Daurès, Jean-Pierre</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Devereaux, P. J.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Landais, Paul</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Le Manach, Yannick</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC medical research methodology</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2001</subfield><subfield code="g">17(2017), 1 vom: 28. Apr.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)326643818</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2041362-2</subfield><subfield code="x">1471-2288</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:17</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2017</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:28</subfield><subfield code="g">month:04</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0338-0</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2031</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2057</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">17</subfield><subfield code="j">2017</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">28</subfield><subfield code="c">04</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Nguyen, Tri-Long
spellingShingle	Nguyen, Tri-Long misc Causal inference misc Propensity score misc Covariate balance misc Confounding Double-adjustment in propensity score matching analysis: choosing a threshold for considering residual imbalance
authorStr	Nguyen, Tri-Long
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)326643818
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	springer
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	1471-2288
topic_title	Double-adjustment in propensity score matching analysis: choosing a threshold for considering residual imbalance Causal inference (dpeaa)DE-He213 Propensity score (dpeaa)DE-He213 Covariate balance (dpeaa)DE-He213 Confounding (dpeaa)DE-He213
topic	misc Causal inference misc Propensity score misc Covariate balance misc Confounding
topic_unstemmed	misc Causal inference misc Propensity score misc Covariate balance misc Confounding
topic_browse	misc Causal inference misc Propensity score misc Covariate balance misc Confounding
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	BMC medical research methodology
hierarchy_parent_id	326643818
hierarchy_top_title	BMC medical research methodology
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)326643818 (DE-600)2041362-2
title	Double-adjustment in propensity score matching analysis: choosing a threshold for considering residual imbalance
ctrlnum	(DE-627)SPR027372782 (SPR)s12874-017-0338-0-e
title_full	Double-adjustment in propensity score matching analysis: choosing a threshold for considering residual imbalance
author_sort	Nguyen, Tri-Long
journal	BMC medical research methodology
journalStr	BMC medical research methodology
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2017
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Nguyen, Tri-Long Collins, Gary S. Spence, Jessica Daurès, Jean-Pierre Devereaux, P. J. Landais, Paul Le Manach, Yannick
container_volume	17
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Nguyen, Tri-Long
doi_str_mv	10.1186/s12874-017-0338-0
title_sort	double-adjustment in propensity score matching analysis: choosing a threshold for considering residual imbalance
title_auth	Double-adjustment in propensity score matching analysis: choosing a threshold for considering residual imbalance
abstract	Background Double-adjustment can be used to remove confounding if imbalance exists after propensity score (PS) matching. However, it is not always possible to include all covariates in adjustment. We aimed to find the optimal imbalance threshold for entering covariates into regression. Methods We conducted a series of Monte Carlo simulations on virtual populations of 5,000 subjects. We performed PS 1:1 nearest-neighbor matching on each sample. We calculated standardized mean differences across groups to detect any remaining imbalance in the matched samples. We examined 25 thresholds (from 0.01 to 0.25, stepwise 0.01) for considering residual imbalance. The treatment effect was estimated using logistic regression that contained only those covariates considered to be unbalanced by these thresholds. Results We showed that regression adjustment could dramatically remove residual confounding bias when it included all of the covariates with a standardized difference greater than 0.10. The additional benefit was negligible when we also adjusted for covariates with less imbalance. We found that the mean squared error of the estimates was minimized under the same conditions. Conclusion If covariate balance is not achieved, we recommend reiterating PS modeling until standardized differences below 0.10 are achieved on most covariates. In case of remaining imbalance, a double adjustment might be worth considering. © The Author(s). 2017
abstractGer	Background Double-adjustment can be used to remove confounding if imbalance exists after propensity score (PS) matching. However, it is not always possible to include all covariates in adjustment. We aimed to find the optimal imbalance threshold for entering covariates into regression. Methods We conducted a series of Monte Carlo simulations on virtual populations of 5,000 subjects. We performed PS 1:1 nearest-neighbor matching on each sample. We calculated standardized mean differences across groups to detect any remaining imbalance in the matched samples. We examined 25 thresholds (from 0.01 to 0.25, stepwise 0.01) for considering residual imbalance. The treatment effect was estimated using logistic regression that contained only those covariates considered to be unbalanced by these thresholds. Results We showed that regression adjustment could dramatically remove residual confounding bias when it included all of the covariates with a standardized difference greater than 0.10. The additional benefit was negligible when we also adjusted for covariates with less imbalance. We found that the mean squared error of the estimates was minimized under the same conditions. Conclusion If covariate balance is not achieved, we recommend reiterating PS modeling until standardized differences below 0.10 are achieved on most covariates. In case of remaining imbalance, a double adjustment might be worth considering. © The Author(s). 2017
abstract_unstemmed	Background Double-adjustment can be used to remove confounding if imbalance exists after propensity score (PS) matching. However, it is not always possible to include all covariates in adjustment. We aimed to find the optimal imbalance threshold for entering covariates into regression. Methods We conducted a series of Monte Carlo simulations on virtual populations of 5,000 subjects. We performed PS 1:1 nearest-neighbor matching on each sample. We calculated standardized mean differences across groups to detect any remaining imbalance in the matched samples. We examined 25 thresholds (from 0.01 to 0.25, stepwise 0.01) for considering residual imbalance. The treatment effect was estimated using logistic regression that contained only those covariates considered to be unbalanced by these thresholds. Results We showed that regression adjustment could dramatically remove residual confounding bias when it included all of the covariates with a standardized difference greater than 0.10. The additional benefit was negligible when we also adjusted for covariates with less imbalance. We found that the mean squared error of the estimates was minimized under the same conditions. Conclusion If covariate balance is not achieved, we recommend reiterating PS modeling until standardized differences below 0.10 are achieved on most covariates. In case of remaining imbalance, a double adjustment might be worth considering. © The Author(s). 2017
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	1
title_short	Double-adjustment in propensity score matching analysis: choosing a threshold for considering residual imbalance
url	https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0338-0
remote_bool	true
author2	Collins, Gary S. Spence, Jessica Daurès, Jean-Pierre Devereaux, P. J. Landais, Paul Le Manach, Yannick
author2Str	Collins, Gary S. Spence, Jessica Daurès, Jean-Pierre Devereaux, P. J. Landais, Paul Le Manach, Yannick
ppnlink	326643818
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1186/s12874-017-0338-0
up_date	2024-07-04T01:34:48.666Z
_version_	1803610372091936769
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR027372782</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230520010508.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2017 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12874-017-0338-0</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR027372782</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12874-017-0338-0-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nguyen, Tri-Long</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Double-adjustment in propensity score matching analysis: choosing a threshold for considering residual imbalance</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s). 2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Double-adjustment can be used to remove confounding if imbalance exists after propensity score (PS) matching. However, it is not always possible to include all covariates in adjustment. We aimed to find the optimal imbalance threshold for entering covariates into regression. Methods We conducted a series of Monte Carlo simulations on virtual populations of 5,000 subjects. We performed PS 1:1 nearest-neighbor matching on each sample. We calculated standardized mean differences across groups to detect any remaining imbalance in the matched samples. We examined 25 thresholds (from 0.01 to 0.25, stepwise 0.01) for considering residual imbalance. The treatment effect was estimated using logistic regression that contained only those covariates considered to be unbalanced by these thresholds. Results We showed that regression adjustment could dramatically remove residual confounding bias when it included all of the covariates with a standardized difference greater than 0.10. The additional benefit was negligible when we also adjusted for covariates with less imbalance. We found that the mean squared error of the estimates was minimized under the same conditions. Conclusion If covariate balance is not achieved, we recommend reiterating PS modeling until standardized differences below 0.10 are achieved on most covariates. In case of remaining imbalance, a double adjustment might be worth considering.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Causal inference</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Propensity score</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Covariate balance</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Confounding</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Collins, Gary S.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Spence, Jessica</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Daurès, Jean-Pierre</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Devereaux, P. J.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Landais, Paul</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Le Manach, Yannick</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC medical research methodology</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2001</subfield><subfield code="g">17(2017), 1 vom: 28. Apr.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)326643818</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2041362-2</subfield><subfield code="x">1471-2288</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:17</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2017</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:28</subfield><subfield code="g">month:04</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0338-0</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2031</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2057</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">17</subfield><subfield code="j">2017</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">28</subfield><subfield code="c">04</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.4001417

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Double-adjustment in propensity score matching analysis: choosing a threshold for considering residual imbalance

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?