Clinicians often face difficult decisions despite the lack of evidence from randomized trials. Thus, clinical evidence is often shaped by non-randomized studies exploiting multivariable approaches to limit the extent of confounding. Since their introduction, propensity scores have been used more and more frequently to estimate relevant clinical effects adjusting for established confounders, especially in small datasets. However, debate persists on their real usefulness in comparison to standard multivariable approaches such as logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard analysis. This holds even truer in light of key quantitative developments such as bootstrap and Bayesian methods. This qualitative review aims to provide a concise and practical guide to choose between propensity scores and standard multivariable analysis, emphasizing strengths and weaknesses of both approaches. © 2011 Elsevier Inc.

Are propensity scores really superior to standard multivariable analysis? / Biondi-Zoccai, Giuseppe; Romagnoli, Enrico; Agostoni, Pierfrancesco; Capodanno, Davide; Castagno, Davide; D'Ascenzo, Fabrizio; Sangiorgi, Giuseppe; Modena, Maria Grazia. - In: CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL TRIALS. - ISSN 1551-7144. - 32:5(2011), pp. 731-740. [10.1016/j.cct.2011.05.006]

Are propensity scores really superior to standard multivariable analysis?

Biondi-Zoccai, Giuseppe;Modena, Maria Grazia
2011

Abstract

Clinicians often face difficult decisions despite the lack of evidence from randomized trials. Thus, clinical evidence is often shaped by non-randomized studies exploiting multivariable approaches to limit the extent of confounding. Since their introduction, propensity scores have been used more and more frequently to estimate relevant clinical effects adjusting for established confounders, especially in small datasets. However, debate persists on their real usefulness in comparison to standard multivariable approaches such as logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard analysis. This holds even truer in light of key quantitative developments such as bootstrap and Bayesian methods. This qualitative review aims to provide a concise and practical guide to choose between propensity scores and standard multivariable analysis, emphasizing strengths and weaknesses of both approaches. © 2011 Elsevier Inc.
2011
32
5
731
740
Are propensity scores really superior to standard multivariable analysis? / Biondi-Zoccai, Giuseppe; Romagnoli, Enrico; Agostoni, Pierfrancesco; Capodanno, Davide; Castagno, Davide; D'Ascenzo, Fabrizio; Sangiorgi, Giuseppe; Modena, Maria Grazia. - In: CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL TRIALS. - ISSN 1551-7144. - 32:5(2011), pp. 731-740. [10.1016/j.cct.2011.05.006]
Biondi-Zoccai, Giuseppe; Romagnoli, Enrico; Agostoni, Pierfrancesco; Capodanno, Davide; Castagno, Davide; D'Ascenzo, Fabrizio; Sangiorgi, Giuseppe; Mo...espandi
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
1-s2.0-S155171441100111X-main.pdf

Open access

Tipologia: Versione pubblicata dall'editore
Dimensione 420.84 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
420.84 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Licenza Creative Commons
I metadati presenti in IRIS UNIMORE sono rilasciati con licenza Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal, mentre i file delle pubblicazioni sono rilasciati con licenza Attribuzione 4.0 Internazionale (CC BY 4.0), salvo diversa indicazione.
In caso di violazione di copyright, contattare Supporto Iris

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11380/1148620
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 56
  • Scopus 196
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 196
social impact