Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery
Published in: European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery 3/2018

01-06-2018 | 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

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

Published in: European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery | Issue 3/2018

Login to get access

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
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.
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.
4.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. New York: Wiley; 2011.
9.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Austin PC. A comparison of 12 algorithms for matching on the propensity score. Stat Med. 2014;33(6):1057–69.CrossRefPubMed
16.
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.
Austin PC. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios. Stat Med. 2007;26(16):3078–94.CrossRefPubMed
18.
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.
Morgan SL, Todd JL. A diagnostic routine for the detection of consequential heterogeneity of causal effects. Sociol Methodol. 2008;38:231–81.CrossRef
20.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Metadata
Title
A systematic review of propensity score methods in the acute care surgery literature: avoiding the pitfalls and proposing a set of reporting guidelines
Authors
T. L. Zakrison
P. C. Austin
V. A. McCredie
Publication date
01-06-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery / Issue 3/2018
Print ISSN: 1863-9933
Electronic ISSN: 1863-9941
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-017-0786-6

Other articles of this Issue 3/2018

European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery 3/2018 Go to the issue

Original Article

Fall from heights: does height really matter?

Original Article

Reduced invasive and muscle-sparing operative approaches to the posterolateral chest wall provide an excellent accessibility for the operative stabilization!

Original Article

Danger signals from mitochondrial DAMPS in trauma and post-injury sepsis

Original Article

Pediatric out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation by helicopter emergency medical service, does it has added value compared to regular emergency medical service?

Original Article

Management of blunt splenic injury in a UK major trauma centre and predicting the failure of non-operative management: a retrospective, cross-sectional study

Letter to the Editor

Minimized approaches to the posterolateral chest wall in the fixation of rib fracture