A comparison of 12 algorithms for matching on the propensity score.
A comparison of 12 algorithms for matching on the propensity score.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/sim.6004
复制
发表时间：
2014-03-15
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
Austin, Peter C.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Austin, Peter C.
关键词：
倾向评分匹配越来越多地用于减少观察性研究中可能发生的混淆，这些研究检查了治疗或干预对结果的影响。我们使用Monte Carlo模拟来检查以下算法，以形成匹配的治疗和未治疗的受试者对：最佳匹配，贪婪的最近邻匹配没有更换，贪婪的最近邻匹配没有更换指定的卡尺宽度。对于后两种算法中的每一种，我们检查了四种不同的子算法，这些子算法由选择治疗受试者与未治疗受试者匹配的顺序定义：最低至最高倾向评分、最高至最低倾向评分、最佳匹配优先和随机顺序。我们还研究了匹配与替换。我们发现，（i）最近邻匹配与最佳匹配在基线协变量中诱导了相同的平衡;（ii）当至少一些协变量是连续的时，卡尺匹配倾向于诱导基线协变量的平衡，至少与其他算法一样好;（iii）卡尺匹配倾向于导致治疗效果的估计值，与最佳和最近邻匹配相比，偏倚较小;（iv）最佳和最近邻匹配导致治疗效果的估计，其变异性比卡尺匹配小得可以忽略不计;（v）当使用均方误差评估时，卡尺匹配具有最佳性能;（vi）选择治疗受试者进行匹配的顺序对估计最多具有适度的影响;（vii）与未更换的卡尺匹配相比，更换的卡尺匹配没有上级性能。© 2013作者。出版社：John Wiley & Sons，Ltd
Propensity-score matching is increasingly being used to reduce the confounding that can occur in observational studies examining the effects of treatments or interventions on outcomes. We used Monte Carlo simulations to examine the following algorithms for forming matched pairs of treated and untreated subjects: optimal matching, greedy nearest neighbor matching without replacement, and greedy nearest neighbor matching without replacement within specified caliper widths. For each of the latter two algorithms, we examined four different sub-algorithms defined by the order in which treated subjects were selected for matching to an untreated subject: lowest to highest propensity score, highest to lowest propensity score, best match first, and random order. We also examined matching with replacement. We found that (i) nearest neighbor matching induced the same balance in baseline covariates as did optimal matching; (ii) when at least some of the covariates were continuous, caliper matching tended to induce balance on baseline covariates that was at least as good as the other algorithms; (iii) caliper matching tended to result in estimates of treatment effect with less bias compared with optimal and nearest neighbor matching; (iv) optimal and nearest neighbor matching resulted in estimates of treatment effect with negligibly less variability than did caliper matching; (v) caliper matching had amongst the best performance when assessed using mean squared error; (vi) the order in which treated subjects were selected for matching had at most a modest effect on estimation; and (vii) matching with replacement did not have superior performance compared with caliper matching without replacement. © 2013 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
2
作者：
Austin, Peter C.
通讯作者：
Austin, Peter C.
影响因子：
2
作者：
Austin, Peter C.
通讯作者：
Austin, Peter C.
影响因子：
2
作者：
Hill, Jennifer;Reiter, Jerome P.
通讯作者：
Reiter, Jerome P.
影响因子：
2
作者：
Austin, PC;Mamdani, MM
通讯作者：
Mamdani, MM
DOI：
10.1080/03610910903528301
发表时间：
2010-01-01
影响因子：
0.9
作者：
Austin, Peter C.
通讯作者：
Austin, Peter C.