Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders
Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/aje/kwg115
复制
发表时间：
2003-08-01
影响因子：
5
通讯作者：
Strom, BL
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cepeda, MS;Boston, R;Strom, BL
本研究的目的是在事件数量相对于混杂因素数量较少的情况下，使用蒙特卡罗模拟从偏差、精度、经验覆盖概率、经验功效和稳健性方面对逻辑回归和倾向得分进行比较。作者模拟了一项队列研究，并进行了252,480次试验。在逻辑回归中，随着每个混杂因素的事件数量增加，偏差减小。在倾向得分中，随着暴露与结果关联的强度增加，偏差减小。当每个混杂因素有7个或更少事件时，倾向得分产生的估计值比逻辑回归估计值偏差更小、更稳健且更精确。逻辑回归的经验覆盖概率随着每个混杂因素的事件数量增加而增加。当每个混杂因素有8个或更多事件时，倾向得分的经验覆盖概率降低。总体而言，倾向得分比逻辑回归表现出更强的经验功效。当每个混杂因素有7个或更少事件时，倾向得分是控制不平衡的良好替代方法；然而，经验功效可能在35%到60%之间。当每个混杂因素至少有8个事件时，逻辑回归是首选技术。
The aim of this study was to use Monte Carlo simulations to compare logistic regression with propensity scores in terms of bias, precision, empirical coverage probability, empirical power, and robustness when the number of events is low relative to the number of confounders. The authors simulated a cohort study and performed 252,480 trials. In the logistic regression, the bias decreased as the number of events per confounder increased. In the propensity score, the bias decreased as the strength of the association of the exposure with the outcome increased. Propensity scores produced estimates that were less biased, more robust, and more precise than the logistic regression estimates. when there were seven or fewer events per confounder. The logistic regression empirical coverage probability increased as the number of events per confounder increased. The propensity score empirical coverage probability decreased after eight or more events per confounder. Overall, the propensity score exhibited more empirical power than logistic regression. Propensity scores are a good alternative to control for imbalances when there are seven or fewer events per confounder; however, empirical power could range from 35% to 60%. Logistic regression is the technique of choice when there are at least eight events per confounder.