Dataset Information

A Systematic Review of Propensity Score Matching in the Orthopedic Literature.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Propensity score matching (PSM) is a statistical technique used to reduce bias in observational studies by controlling for measured confounders. Given its complexity and popularity, it is imperative that researchers comprehensively report their methodologies to ensure accurate interpretation and reproducibility.

Purpose

This systematic review sought to define how often PSM has been used in recent orthopedic research and to describe how such studies reported their methods. Secondary aims included analyzing study reproducibility, bibliometric factors associated with reproducibility, and associations between methodology and the reporting of statistically significant results.

Methods

PubMed and Embase databases were queried for studies containing "propensity score" and "match*" published in 20 orthopedic journals prior to 2020. All studies meeting inclusion criteria were used for trend analysis. Articles published between 2017 and 2019 were used for analysis of reporting quality and reproducibility.

Results

In all, 261 studies were included for trend analysis, and 162 studies underwent full-text review. The proportion of orthopedic studies using PSM significantly increased over time. Seventy-one (41%) articles did not provide justification for covariate selection. The majority of studies illustrated covariate balance through P values. We found that 19% of the studies were fully reproducible. Most studies failed to report the use of replacement (67.3%) or independent or paired statistical methods (34.0%). Studies reporting standardized mean differences to illustrate covariate balance were less likely to report statistically significant results.

Conclusion

Despite the increased use of PSM in orthopedic research, observational studies employing PSM have largely failed to adequately report their methodology.

SUBMITTER: Arguelles GR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9527541 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Systematic Review of Propensity Score Matching in the Orthopedic Literature.

Arguelles Gabriel R GR Shin Max M Lebrun Drake G DG DeFrancesco Christopher J CJ Fabricant Peter D PD Baldwin Keith D KD

HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery 20220404 4

<h4>Background</h4>Propensity score matching (PSM) is a statistical technique used to reduce bias in observational studies by controlling for measured confounders. Given its complexity and popularity, it is imperative that researchers comprehensively report their methodologies to ensure accurate interpretation and reproducibility.<h4>Purpose</h4>This systematic review sought to define how often PSM has been used in recent orthopedic research and to describe how such studies reported their method ...[more]

PMID: 36263277

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe diagnostic process is a key element of medicine but it is complex and prone to errors. Infectious diseases are one of the three categories of diseases in which diagnostic errors can be most harmful to patients. In this study we aimed to estimate the effect of initial misdiagnosis of the source of infection in patients with bacteraemia on 14 day mortality using propensity score methods to adjust for confounding.MethodsData from a previously described longitudinal cohort of patients diagnosed with monobacterial bloodstream infection (BSI) at the Leiden University Medical Centre (LUMC) between 2013 and 2015 were used. Propensity score matching and inversed probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were applied to correct for confounding. The average treatment effect on the treated (ATT), which in this study was the average effect of initial misdiagnosis on the misdiagnosed (AEMM), was estimated. Methodological issues that were encountered when applying propensity score methods were addressed by performing additional sensitivity analyses. Sensitivity analyses consisted of varying caliper in propensity score matching and using different truncated weights in inversed probability of treatment weighting.ResultsData of 887 patients were included in the study. Propensity scores ranged between 0.015 and 0.999 and 80 patients (9.9%) had a propensity score > 0.95. In the matched analyses, 35 of the 171 misdiagnosed patients died within 14 days (20.5%), versus 10 of the 171 correctly diagnosed patients (5.8%), yielding a difference of 14.6% (7.6%; 21.6%). In the total group of patients, the observed percentage of patients with an incorrect initial diagnosis that died within 14 days was 19.8% while propensity score reweighting estimated that their probability of dying would have been 6.5%, if they had been correctly diagnosed (difference 13.3% (95% CI 6.9%;19.6%)). After adjustment for all variables that showed disbalance in the propensity score a difference of 13.7% (7.4%; 19.9%) was estimated. Sensitivity analyses yielded similar results. However, performing weighted analyses without truncation yielded unstable results.ConclusionThus, we observed a substantial increase of 14 day mortality in initially misdiagnosed patients. Furthermore, several patients received propensity scores extremely close to one and were almost sure to be initially misdiagnosed.

Project description:It is increasingly important to accurately and comprehensively estimate the effects of particular clinical treatments. Although randomization is the current gold standard, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often limited in practice due to ethical and cost issues. Observational studies have also attracted a great deal of attention as, quite often, large historical datasets are available for these kinds of studies. However, observational studies also have their drawbacks, mainly including the systematic differences in baseline covariates, which relate to outcomes between treatment and control groups that can potentially bias results. Propensity score methods, which are a series of balancing methods in these studies, have become increasingly popular by virtue of the two major advantages of dimension reduction and design separation. Within this approach, propensity score matching (PSM) has been empirically proven, with outstanding performances across observational datasets. While PSM tutorials are available in the literature, there is still room for improvement. Some PSM tutorials provide step-by-step guidance, but only one or two packages have been covered, thereby limiting their scope and practicality. Several articles and books have expounded upon propensity scores in detail, exploring statistical principles and theories; however, the lack of explanations on function usage in programming language has made it difficult for researchers to understand and follow these materials. To this end, this tutorial was developed with a six-step PSM framework, in which we summarize the recent updates and provide step-by-step guidance to the R programming language. This tutorial offers researchers with a broad survey of PSM, ranging from data preprocessing to estimations of propensity scores, and from matching to analyses. We also explain generalized propensity scoring for multiple or continuous treatments, as well as time-dependent PSM. Lastly, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of propensity score methods.

Project description:ObjectivesAt present, there are no established clinical guidelines for radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of peribiliary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of RFA for peribiliary vs. non-peribiliary HCC.MethodsThis retrospective study included 282 patients with peribiliary HCC (n = 109) or non-peribiliary HCC (n = 173) who received RFA between February 2013 and May 2021. Local tumor progression (LTP), overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and complications were compared before and after propensity score matching (PSM).ResultsBefore PSM, there were no significant differences in 5-year LTP rates (26.3% vs. 23.6%, p = 0.602), OS rates (56.6% vs. 68.0%, p = 0.586), or DFS rates (22.9% vs. 25.7%, p = 0.239) between the peribiliary and non-peribiliary groups. After PSM, there were no significant differences in the 1-, 3-, and 5-year LTP rates (13.0%, 23.1%, and 26.3% vs. 12.1%, 25.1%, and 28.2%, respectively, p = 0.857), OS rates (97.2%, 73.5%, and 56.6% vs. 95.3%, 79.5%, and 70.6%, p = 0.727), or DFS rates (59.4%, 29.4%, and 22.9% vs. 64.2%, 33.1%, and 23.8%, p = 0.568) between the peribiliary non-peribiliary groups. Peribiliary location was not a significant prognostic factor for LTP (p = 0.622) or OS (p = 0.587). In addition, mild intrahepatic bile duct dilatation was more frequent in the peribiliary group (9.2% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.045).ConclusionLong-term outcomes of RFA were similar for peribiliary and non-peribiliary HCC. RFA is a viable alternative for treatment of peribiliary HCC.Critical relevance statementThe local tumor progression (LTP), overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) rates after radiofrequency ablation (RFA) were similar for peribiliary and non-peribiliary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).Key pointsThere are currently no clinical guidelines for radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of peribiliary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Local tumor progression, overall survival, and disease-free survival after RFA were similar for peribiliary and non-peribiliary HCC. RFA is a viable alternative for the treatment of peribiliary HCC.

Dataset Information

A Systematic Review of Propensity Score Matching in the Orthopedic Literature.

Background

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

A Systematic Review of Propensity Score Matching in the Orthopedic Literature.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets