Evaluation of propensity score used in cardiovascular research: a cross-sectional survey and guidance document
Background Propensity score (PS) methods are frequently used in cardiovascular clinical research. Previous evaluations revealed poor reporting of PS methods, however a comprehensive and current evaluation of PS use and reporting is lacking. The objectives of the present survey were to (1) evaluate t...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2020-08-01
|
| Series: | BMJ Open |
| Online Access: | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/8/e036961.full |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1846146835594346496 |
|---|---|
| author | Joanne Kim Robert W Platt James M Brophy Michelle Samuel Brice Batomen Julie Rouette Jay S Kaufman |
| author_facet | Joanne Kim Robert W Platt James M Brophy Michelle Samuel Brice Batomen Julie Rouette Jay S Kaufman |
| author_sort | Joanne Kim |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background Propensity score (PS) methods are frequently used in cardiovascular clinical research. Previous evaluations revealed poor reporting of PS methods, however a comprehensive and current evaluation of PS use and reporting is lacking. The objectives of the present survey were to (1) evaluate the quality of PS methods in cardiovascular publications, (2) summarise PS methods and (3) propose key reporting elements for PS publications.Methods A PubMed search for cardiovascular PS articles published between 2010 and 2017 in high-impact general medical (top five by impact factor) and cardiovascular (top three by impact factor) journals was performed. Articles were evaluated for the reporting of PS techniques and methods. Data extraction elements were identified from the PS literature and extraction forms were pilot tested.Results Of the 306 PS articles identified, most were published in Journal of the American College of Cardiology (29%; n=88), and Circulation (27%, n=81), followed by European Heart Journal (15%; n=47). PS matching was performed most often, followed by direct adjustment, inverse probability of treatment weighting and stratification. Most studies (77%; n=193) selected variables to include in the PS model a priori. A total of 38% (n=116) of studies did not report standardised mean differences, but instead relied on hypothesis testing. For matching, 92% (n=193) of articles presented the balance of covariates. Overall, interpretations of the effect estimates corresponded to the PS method conducted or described in 49% (n=150) of the reviewed articles.Discussion Although PS methods are frequently used in high-impact medical journals, reporting of methodological details has been inconsistent. Improved reporting of PS results is warranted and these proposals should aid both researchers and consumers in the presentation and interpretation of PS methods. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-9f9daed04e5e4a40905b1e5caa890900 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2044-6055 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2020-08-01 |
| publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMJ Open |
| spelling | doaj-art-9f9daed04e5e4a40905b1e5caa8909002024-12-02T01:10:13ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Open2044-60552020-08-0110810.1136/bmjopen-2020-036961Evaluation of propensity score used in cardiovascular research: a cross-sectional survey and guidance documentJoanne Kim0Robert W Platt1James M Brophy2Michelle Samuel3Brice Batomen4Julie Rouette5Jay S Kaufman62 Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, CanadaEpidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Québec, Canada1 Center for Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada1 Center for Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada13 University of Toronto Dalla Lana School of Public Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada2 Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, CanadaDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, CanadaBackground Propensity score (PS) methods are frequently used in cardiovascular clinical research. Previous evaluations revealed poor reporting of PS methods, however a comprehensive and current evaluation of PS use and reporting is lacking. The objectives of the present survey were to (1) evaluate the quality of PS methods in cardiovascular publications, (2) summarise PS methods and (3) propose key reporting elements for PS publications.Methods A PubMed search for cardiovascular PS articles published between 2010 and 2017 in high-impact general medical (top five by impact factor) and cardiovascular (top three by impact factor) journals was performed. Articles were evaluated for the reporting of PS techniques and methods. Data extraction elements were identified from the PS literature and extraction forms were pilot tested.Results Of the 306 PS articles identified, most were published in Journal of the American College of Cardiology (29%; n=88), and Circulation (27%, n=81), followed by European Heart Journal (15%; n=47). PS matching was performed most often, followed by direct adjustment, inverse probability of treatment weighting and stratification. Most studies (77%; n=193) selected variables to include in the PS model a priori. A total of 38% (n=116) of studies did not report standardised mean differences, but instead relied on hypothesis testing. For matching, 92% (n=193) of articles presented the balance of covariates. Overall, interpretations of the effect estimates corresponded to the PS method conducted or described in 49% (n=150) of the reviewed articles.Discussion Although PS methods are frequently used in high-impact medical journals, reporting of methodological details has been inconsistent. Improved reporting of PS results is warranted and these proposals should aid both researchers and consumers in the presentation and interpretation of PS methods.https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/8/e036961.full |
| spellingShingle | Joanne Kim Robert W Platt James M Brophy Michelle Samuel Brice Batomen Julie Rouette Jay S Kaufman Evaluation of propensity score used in cardiovascular research: a cross-sectional survey and guidance document BMJ Open |
| title | Evaluation of propensity score used in cardiovascular research: a cross-sectional survey and guidance document |
| title_full | Evaluation of propensity score used in cardiovascular research: a cross-sectional survey and guidance document |
| title_fullStr | Evaluation of propensity score used in cardiovascular research: a cross-sectional survey and guidance document |
| title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of propensity score used in cardiovascular research: a cross-sectional survey and guidance document |
| title_short | Evaluation of propensity score used in cardiovascular research: a cross-sectional survey and guidance document |
| title_sort | evaluation of propensity score used in cardiovascular research a cross sectional survey and guidance document |
| url | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/8/e036961.full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT joannekim evaluationofpropensityscoreusedincardiovascularresearchacrosssectionalsurveyandguidancedocument AT robertwplatt evaluationofpropensityscoreusedincardiovascularresearchacrosssectionalsurveyandguidancedocument AT jamesmbrophy evaluationofpropensityscoreusedincardiovascularresearchacrosssectionalsurveyandguidancedocument AT michellesamuel evaluationofpropensityscoreusedincardiovascularresearchacrosssectionalsurveyandguidancedocument AT bricebatomen evaluationofpropensityscoreusedincardiovascularresearchacrosssectionalsurveyandguidancedocument AT julierouette evaluationofpropensityscoreusedincardiovascularresearchacrosssectionalsurveyandguidancedocument AT jayskaufman evaluationofpropensityscoreusedincardiovascularresearchacrosssectionalsurveyandguidancedocument |