Propensity Score Matching: Retrospective Randomization?
Propensity Score Matching: Retrospective Randomization?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1053/j.jfas.2017.01.013
复制
发表时间：
2017-03-01
影响因子：
1.3
通讯作者：
Jupiter, Daniel C.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jupiter, Daniel C.
随机对照试验被认为是最佳的研究设计。在这篇评论中，我们将探讨这种设计的力量及其复杂性。我们还讨论了一些情况下，这些试验是不可能的，或不道德，或不经济。在这种情况下，特别是在回顾性研究中，我们应该尽一切努力概括随机试验的严谨性和强度。然而，在这种情况下，我们可能会面临固有的指示偏差。因此，我们考虑可用的工具来解决这种偏见。具体来说，我们研究匹配，并介绍和探索一个新的工具：倾向得分匹配。该工具允许我们根据受试者在特定治疗组中的倾向对受试者进行分组，并在此过程中考虑适应症偏倚。(C)2017年，美国足踝外科医生学会（American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons）All rights reserved.
Randomized controlled trials are viewed as the optimal study design. In this commentary, we explore the strength of this design and its complexity. We also discuss some situations in which these trials are not possible, or not ethical, or not economical. In such situations, specifically, in retrospective studies, we should make every effort to recapitulate the rigor and strength of the randomized trial. However, we could be faced with an inherent indication bias in such a setting. Thus, we consider the tools available to address that bias. Specifically, we examine matching and introduce and explore a new tool: propensity score matching. This tool allows us to group subjects according to their propensity to be in a particular treatment group and, in so doing, to account for the indication bias. (C) 2017 by the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons. All rights reserved.