↓ Skip to main content

Propensity score interval matching: using bootstrap confidence intervals for accommodating estimation errors of propensity scores

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Propensity score interval matching: using bootstrap confidence intervals for accommodating estimation errors of propensity scores
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12874-015-0049-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wei Pan, Haiyan Bai

Abstract

Propensity score methods have become a popular tool for reducing selection bias in making causal inference from observational studies in medical research. Propensity score matching, a key component of propensity score methods, normally matches units based on the distance between point estimates of the propensity scores. The problem with this technique is that it is difficult to establish a sensible criterion to evaluate the closeness of matched units without knowing estimation errors of the propensity scores. The present study introduces interval matching using bootstrap confidence intervals for accommodating estimation errors of propensity scores. In interval matching, if the confidence interval of a unit in the treatment group overlaps with that of one or more units in the comparison group, they are considered as matched units. The procedure of interval matching is illustrated in an empirical example using a real-life dataset from the Nursing Home Compare, a national survey conducted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The empirical example provided promising evidence that interval matching reduced more selection bias than did commonly used matching methods including the rival method, caliper matching. Interval matching's approach methodologically sounds more meaningful than its competing matching methods because interval matching develop a more "scientific" criterion for matching units using confidence intervals. Interval matching is a promisingly better alternative tool for reducing selection bias in making causal inference from observational studies, especially useful in secondary data analysis on national databases such as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 7%
Portugal 1 2%
Unknown 54 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 19%
Student > Master 9 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Researcher 4 7%
Other 15 25%
Unknown 9 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 17%
Social Sciences 5 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 8%
Mathematics 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Other 20 34%
Unknown 12 20%