PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 28, 2010Pharmaceutical Statistics4,026 citationsOpen Access

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

View Full Paper
PAPeter C. Austin

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

In a study comparing the effects of two treatments, the propensity score is the probability of assignment to one treatment conditional on a subject's measured baseline covariates. Propensity-score matching is increasingly being used to estimate the effects of exposures using observational data. In the most common implementation of propensity-score matching, pairs of treated and untreated subjects are formed whose propensity scores differ by at most a pre-specified amount (the caliper width). There has been a little research into the optimal caliper width. We conducted an extensive series of Monte Carlo simulations to determine the optimal caliper width for estimating differences in means (for continuous outcomes) and risk differences (for binary outcomes). When estimating differences in means or risk differences, we recommend that researchers match on the logit of the propensity score using calipers of width equal to 0.2 of the standard deviation of the logit of the propensity score. When at least some of the covariates were continuous, then either this value, or one close to it, minimized the mean square error of the resultant estimated treatment effect. It also eliminated at least 98% of the bias in the crude estimator, and it resulted in confidence intervals with approximately the correct coverage rates. Furthermore, the empirical type I error rate was approximately correct. When all of the covariates were binary, then the choice of caliper width had a much smaller impact on the performance of estimation of risk differences and differences in means.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Peter C. Austin (2010) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69a76c818f929275019e421dhttps://doi.org/10.1002/pst.433
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1The Relative Ability of Different Propensity Score Methods to Balance Measured Covariates Between Treated and Untreated Subjects in Observational Studies2009 · 456 citations
  2. 2Type I Error Rates, Coverage of Confidence Intervals, and Variance Estimation in Propensity-Score Matched Analyses2009 · 189 citations
  3. 3Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity‐score matched samples2009 · 6,757 citations
  4. 4The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios, Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26:3078–30942008 · 34 citations
  5. 5A report card on propensity-score matching in the cardiology literature from 2004 to 2006: results of a systematic review2008 · 13 citations