Merits and caveats of propensity scores to adjust for confounding. Issue 10 (11th September 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Fu, Edouard L; Groenwold, Rolf H H; Zoccali, Carmine; Jager, Kitty J; van Diepen, Merel; Dekker, Friedo W
• Is Part Of: Nephrology dialysis transplantation. Volume 34:Issue 10(2019)
• Page Start: 1629
• Page End: 1635
• Publication Date: 2018-09-11
• Subjects: cohort studies -- confounding -- dialysis -- observational research -- propensity score; Nephrology -- Periodicals; Hemodialysis -- Periodicals; Kidneys -- Transplantation -- Periodicals; Hemodialysis; Kidneys -- Transplantation; Nephrology; Periodicals; 616.61
• DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfy283
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0931-0509

Abstract

Abstract: Proper adjustment for confounding is essential when estimating the effects of treatments or risk factors on health outcomes in observational data. To this end, various statistical methods have been developed. In the past couple of years, the use of propensity scores (PSs) to control for confounding has increased. Proper understanding of this method is necessary to critically appraise research in which it is applied. In this article, we provide an overview of PS methods, explaining their concept, advantages and possible disadvantages. Furthermore, the use of PS matching, PS adjustment and PS weighting is illustrated using data from the Netherlands Cooperative Study on the Adequacy of Dialysis (NECOSAD) cohort of dialysis patients.