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
Comparative Study
. 2011 May 20;30(11):1292-301.
doi: 10.1002/sim.4200. Epub 2011 Feb 21.

Comparing paired vs non-paired statistical methods of analyses when making inferences about absolute risk reductions in propensity-score matched samples

Peter C Austin  1
Affiliations
Free PMC article
Comparative Study

Comparing paired vs non-paired statistical methods of analyses when making inferences about absolute risk reductions in propensity-score matched samples

Peter C Austin. Stat Med. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Propensity-score matching allows one to reduce the effects of treatment-selection bias or confounding when estimating the effects of treatments when using observational data. Some authors have suggested that methods of inference appropriate for independent samples can be used for assessing the statistical significance of treatment effects when using propensity-score matching. Indeed, many authors in the applied medical literature use methods for independent samples when making inferences about treatment effects using propensity-score matched samples. Dichotomous outcomes are common in healthcare research. In this study, we used Monte Carlo simulations to examine the effect on inferences about risk differences (or absolute risk reductions) when statistical methods for independent samples are used compared with when statistical methods for paired samples are used in propensity-score matched samples. We found that compared with using methods for independent samples, the use of methods for paired samples resulted in: (i) empirical type I error rates that were closer to the advertised rate; (ii) empirical coverage rates of 95 per cent confidence intervals that were closer to the advertised rate; (iii) narrower 95 per cent confidence intervals; and (iv) estimated standard errors that more closely reflected the sampling variability of the estimated risk difference. Differences between the empirical and advertised performance of methods for independent samples were greater when the treatment-selection process was stronger compared with when treatment-selection process was weaker. We recommend using statistical methods for paired samples when using propensity-score matched samples for making inferences on the effect of treatment on the reduction in the probability of an event occurring.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70:41–55.
    1. Austin PC. The relative ability of different propensity-score methods to balance measured covariates between treated and untreated subjects in observational studies. Medical Decision Making. 2009;29:661–677. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X09341755. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schafer JL, Kang J. Average causal effects from nonrandomized studies: a practical guide and simulated example. Psychological Methods. 2008;13:279–313. - PubMed
    1. Austin PC. Propensity-score matching in the cardiovascular surgery literature from 2004 to 2006: a systematic review and suggestions for improvement. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2007;134:1128–1135. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2007.07.021. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Austin PC. A critical appraisal of propensity score matching in the medical literature from 1996 to 2003. Statistics in Medicine. 2008;27:2037–2049. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3150. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources