Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples

4.5kCitations
Citations of this article
1.3kReaders
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The propensity score is a subject's probability of treatment, conditional on observed baseline covariates. Conditional on the true propensity score, treated and untreated subjects have similar distributions of observed baseline covariates. Propensity-score matching is a popular method of using the propensity score in the medical literature. Using this approach, matched sets of treated and untreated subjects with similar values of the propensity score are formed. Inferences about treatment effect made using propensity-score matching are valid only if, in the matched sample, treated and untreated subjects have similar distributions of measured baseline covariates. In this paper we discuss the following methods for assessing whether the propensity score model has been correctly specified: comparing means and prevalences of baseline characteristics using standardized differences; ratios comparing the variance of continuous covariates between treated and untreated subjects; comparison of higher order moments and interactions; five-number summaries; and graphical methods such as quantile-quantile plots, side-byside boxplots, and non-parametric density plots for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups. We describe methods to determine the sampling distribution of the standardized difference when the true standardized difference is equal to zero, thereby allowing one to determine the range of standardized differences that are plausible with the propensity score model having been correctly specified. We highlight the limitations of some previously used methods for assessing the adequacy of the specification of the propensity-score model. In particular, methods based on comparing the distribution of the estimated propensity score between treated and untreated subjects are uninformative. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

References Powered by Scopus

The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects

21064Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score

4396Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: Explanation and elaboration

3196Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies

8397Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies

2976Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies

2705Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Austin, P. C. (2009). Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Statistics in Medicine, 28(25), 3083–3107. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3697

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 436

56%

Researcher 230

30%

Professor / Associate Prof. 84

11%

Lecturer / Post doc 29

4%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 374

65%

Social Sciences 88

15%

Economics, Econometrics and Finance 73

13%

Mathematics 37

6%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
News Mentions: 13

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free