Application and comparison of generalized propensity score matching versus pairwise propensity score matching. (21st June 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Cui, Zhanglin L; Hess, Lisa M; Goodloe, Robert; Faries, Doug
• Is Part Of: Journal of comparative effectiveness research. Volume 7:Number 9(2018)
• Page Start: 923
• Page End: 934
• Publication Date: 2018-06-21
• Subjects: bias control -- comparative effectiveness research -- lung cancer -- propensity score matching -- survival analysis; Medical care -- Research -- Periodicals; Medical care -- Research -- Evaluation -- Periodicals; Medical care -- Decision making -- Periodicals; Evidence-based medicine -- Periodicals; Medicine, Comparative -- Periodicals; 362.1072
• DOI: 10.2217/cer-2018-0030
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2042-6305

Abstract

Aim: A comparison of conventional pairwise propensity score matching (PSM) and generalized PSM method was applied to the comparative effectiveness of multiple treatment options for lung cancer.Materials & methods: Deidentified data were analyzed. Covariate balances between compared treatments were assessed before and after PSM. Cox proportional hazards regression compared overall survival after PSM.Results & conclusion: The generalized PSM analyses were able to retain 61.2% of patients, while the conventional PSM analyses were able to match from 24.1 to 77.1% of patients from each treatment comparison. The generalized PSM achieved statistical significance (p < 0.05) in 8/10 comparisons, whereas conventional pairwise PSM achieved 1/10. The noted differences arose from different matched patient samples and the size of the samples.