Can Propensity Score Analysis Approximate Randomized Experiments Using Pretest and Demographic Information in Pre-K Intervention Research?

2018 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nianbo Dong ◽  
Mark W. Lipsey

Background: It is unclear whether propensity score analysis (PSA) based on pretest and demographic covariates will meet the ignorability assumption for replicating the results of randomized experiments. Purpose: This study applies within-study comparisons to assess whether pre-Kindergarten (pre-K) treatment effects on achievement outcomes estimated using PSA based on a pretest and demographic covariates can approximate those found in a randomized experiment. Methods: Data—Four studies with samples of pre-K children each provided data on two math achievement outcome measures with baseline pretests and child demographic variables that included race, gender, age, language spoken at home, and mother’s highest education. Research Design and Data Analysis—A randomized study of a pre-K math curriculum provided benchmark estimates of effects on achievement measures. Comparison samples from other pre-K studies were then substituted for the original randomized control and the effects were reestimated using PSA. The correspondence was evaluated using multiple criteria. Results and Conclusions: The effect estimates using PSA were in the same direction as the benchmark estimates, had similar but not identical statistical significance, and did not differ from the benchmarks at statistically significant levels. However, the magnitude of the effect sizes differed and displayed both absolute and relative bias larger than required to show statistical equivalence with formal tests, but those results were not definitive because of the limited statistical power. We conclude that treatment effect estimates based on a single pretest and demographic covariates in PSA correspond to those from a randomized experiment on the most general criteria for equivalence.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuel Ponce-Alonso ◽  
Borja M Fernández-Félix ◽  
Ana Halperin ◽  
Mario Rodríguez-Domínguez ◽  
Ana M Sánchez-Díaz ◽  
...  

Abstract Purpose: Classically, men have been considered to have a higher incidence of infectious diseases, with controversy over the possibility that sex could condition the prognosis of the infection. The aim of the present work was to explore this assumption in patients admitted to the ICU with sepsis using a robust statistical analysis.Methods: Retrospective analysis (2006-2017) in patients with microbiologically confirmed bacteremia (n=440) by majoritarian bacterial pathogens. Risk of ICU and in-hospital mortality in males respect to females was compared by an univariant analysis and a propensity score correspondence analysis integrating their clinical characteristics. Results: Relevant differences were related to the infection source: urinary origin for females (28.7% vs 19.8%) and abdominopelvic surgery for males (8.8% vs 4.8%). Sepsis occurred more frequently in males (80.2% vs 76.1%) as well as in-hospital (48.0% vs 41.3%) and ICU (39.9% vs 36.5%) mortality. Escherichia coli was 2 times more frequent in survivors whereas Staphylococcus aureus was 3 times more frequent in deceased patients. Univariate analyses showed that males had a higher Charlson comorbidity index, a poorer McCabe prognostic score; however the propensity score in 296 patients demonstrated that females had higher risk of both ICU (OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.13), and in-hospital mortality (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.30) but without statistical significance. Conclusion: Men with sepsis have worse clinical characteristics when admitted to the ICU, but sex has no influence on the prognosis of mortality. Our data contributes to help reduce the sex-dependent gap present in health care provision.


2013 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
William R. Shadish ◽  
Peter M. Steiner ◽  
Thomas D. Cook

Peikes, Moreno and Orzol (2008) sensibly caution researchers that propensity score analysis may not lead to valid causal inference in field applications. But at the same time, they made the far stronger claim to have performed an ideal test of whether propensity score matching in quasi-experimental data is capable of approximating the results of a randomized experiment in their dataset, and that this ideal test showed that such matching could not do so. In this article we show that their study does not support that conclusion because it failed to meet a number of basic criteria for an ideal test. By implication, many other purported tests of the effectiveness of propensity score analysis probably also fail to meet these criteria, and are therefore questionable contributions to the literature on the effects of propensity score analysis. DOI:10.2458/azu_jmmss_v3i2_shadish


Author(s):  
William R. Shadish ◽  
Peter M. Steiner ◽  
Thomas D. Cook

Peikes, Moreno and Orzol (2008) sensibly caution researchers that propensity score analysis may not lead to valid causal inference in field applications. But at the same time, they made the far stronger claim to have performed an ideal test of whether propensity score matching in quasi-experimental data is capable of approximating the results of a randomized experiment in their dataset, and that this ideal test showed that such matching could not do so. In this article we show that their study does not support that conclusion because it failed to meet a number of basic criteria for an ideal test. By implication, many other purported tests of the effectiveness of propensity score analysis probably also fail to meet these criteria, and are therefore questionable contributions to the literature on the effects of propensity score analysis. DOI:10.2458/azu_jmmss_v3i2_shadish


2018 ◽  
Vol 56 (01) ◽  
pp. E2-E89
Author(s):  
M Giesler ◽  
D Bettinger ◽  
M Rössle ◽  
R Thimme ◽  
M Schultheiss

Author(s):  
Alessandro Brunelli ◽  
Gaetano Rocco ◽  
Zalan Szanto ◽  
Pascal Thomas ◽  
Pierre Emmanuel Falcoz

Abstract OBJECTIVES To evaluate the postoperative complications and 30-day mortality rates associated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy before major anatomic lung resections registered in the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS) database. METHODS Retrospective analysis on 52 982 anatomic lung resections registered in the ESTS database (July 2007–31 December 2017) (6587 pneumonectomies and 46 395 lobectomies); 5143 patients received neoadjuvant treatment (9.7%) (3993 chemotherapy alone and 1150 chemoradiotherapy). To adjust for possible confounders, a propensity case-matched analysis was performed. The postoperative outcomes (morbidity and 30-day mortality) of matched patients with and without induction treatment were compared. RESULTS 8.2% of all patients undergoing lobectomies and 20% of all patients undergoing pneumonectomies received induction treatment. Lobectomy analysis: propensity score analysis yielded 3824 pairs of patients with and without induction treatment. The incidence of cardiopulmonary complications was higher in the neoadjuvant group (626 patients, 16% vs 446 patients, 12%, P < 0.001), but 30-day mortality rates were similar (71 patients, 1.9% vs 75 patients, 2.0%, P = 0.73). The incidence of bronchopleural fistula and prolonged air leak >5 days were similar between the 2 groups (neoadjuvant: 0.5% vs 0.4%, P = 0.87; 9.2% vs 9.9%, P = 0.27). Pneumonectomy analysis: propensity score analysis yielded 1312 pairs of patients with and without induction treatment. The incidence of cardiopulmonary complications was higher in the treated patients compared to those without neoadjuvant treatment (neoadjuvant 275 cases, 21% vs 18%, P = 0.030). However, the 30-day mortality was similar between the matched groups (neoadjuvant 68 cases, 5.2% vs 5.3%, P = 0.86). Finally, the incidence of bronchopleural fistula was also similar between the 2 groups (neoadjuvant 1.8% vs 1.4%, P = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is not associated with an increased perioperative risk after either lobectomy or pneumonectomy, warranting a more liberal use of this approach for patients with locally advanced operable lung cancer.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document