A systematic review of propensity score methods in the acute care surgery literature: avoiding the pitfalls and proposing a set of reporting guidelines

Tanya Zakrison, P. C. Austin, V. A. McCredie

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Propensity score methods are techniques commonly employed in observational research to account for confounding when estimating the effects of treatments and exposures. These methods have been increasingly employed in the acute care surgery literature in an attempt to infer causality; however, the adequacy of reporting and the appropriateness of statistical analyses when using propensity score matching remain unclear. Objectives: The goal of this systematic review is to assess the adequacy of reporting of propensity score methods, with an emphasis on propensity score matching (to assess balance and the use of appropriate statistical tests), in acute care surgery (ACS) studies and to provide suggestions for improvement for junior investigators. Methods: We searched three databases, and other relevant literature (from January 2005 to June 2015) to identify observational studies within the ACS literature using propensity score methods (PROSPERO No: CRD42016036432). Two reviewers extracted data and assessed the quality of the studies retrieved by reviewing the adequacy of both overall reporting and of the propensity score matching methods used. Results: A total of 49/71 (69%) of studies adequately reported propensity score methods overall. Matching was the most common propensity score method used in 46/71 (65%) studies, with 36/46 (78%) studies reporting matching methods adequately. Only 19/46 (41%) of matching studies reported the balance of baseline characteristics between treated and untreated subjects while 6/46 (13%) used correct statistical methods to assess balance. There were 35/46 (76%) of matching studies that explicitly used statistical methods appropriate for the analysis of matched data when estimating the treatment effect and its statistical significance. Conclusion: We have proposed reporting guidelines for the use of propensity score methods in the acute care surgery literature. This is to help investigators improve the adequacy of reporting and statistical analyses when using observational data to estimate effects of treatments and exposures.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-11
Number of pages11
JournalEuropean Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Mar 24 2017

Fingerprint

Propensity Score
Guidelines
Research Personnel
Causality
Observational Studies

Keywords

  • Acute care
  • Matching
  • Propensity score
  • Surgery
  • Trauma

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Emergency Medicine
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this

@article{c43c37ee71354edb9bcfaa9bd0126c35,
title = "A systematic review of propensity score methods in the acute care surgery literature: avoiding the pitfalls and proposing a set of reporting guidelines",
abstract = "Background: Propensity score methods are techniques commonly employed in observational research to account for confounding when estimating the effects of treatments and exposures. These methods have been increasingly employed in the acute care surgery literature in an attempt to infer causality; however, the adequacy of reporting and the appropriateness of statistical analyses when using propensity score matching remain unclear. Objectives: The goal of this systematic review is to assess the adequacy of reporting of propensity score methods, with an emphasis on propensity score matching (to assess balance and the use of appropriate statistical tests), in acute care surgery (ACS) studies and to provide suggestions for improvement for junior investigators. Methods: We searched three databases, and other relevant literature (from January 2005 to June 2015) to identify observational studies within the ACS literature using propensity score methods (PROSPERO No: CRD42016036432). Two reviewers extracted data and assessed the quality of the studies retrieved by reviewing the adequacy of both overall reporting and of the propensity score matching methods used. Results: A total of 49/71 (69{\%}) of studies adequately reported propensity score methods overall. Matching was the most common propensity score method used in 46/71 (65{\%}) studies, with 36/46 (78{\%}) studies reporting matching methods adequately. Only 19/46 (41{\%}) of matching studies reported the balance of baseline characteristics between treated and untreated subjects while 6/46 (13{\%}) used correct statistical methods to assess balance. There were 35/46 (76{\%}) of matching studies that explicitly used statistical methods appropriate for the analysis of matched data when estimating the treatment effect and its statistical significance. Conclusion: We have proposed reporting guidelines for the use of propensity score methods in the acute care surgery literature. This is to help investigators improve the adequacy of reporting and statistical analyses when using observational data to estimate effects of treatments and exposures.",
keywords = "Acute care, Matching, Propensity score, Surgery, Trauma",
author = "Tanya Zakrison and Austin, {P. C.} and McCredie, {V. A.}",
year = "2017",
month = "3",
day = "24",
doi = "10.1007/s00068-017-0786-6",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "1--11",
journal = "Unfallchirurgie",
issn = "0340-2649",
publisher = "Urban und Vogel",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A systematic review of propensity score methods in the acute care surgery literature

T2 - avoiding the pitfalls and proposing a set of reporting guidelines

AU - Zakrison, Tanya

AU - Austin, P. C.

AU - McCredie, V. A.

PY - 2017/3/24

Y1 - 2017/3/24

N2 - Background: Propensity score methods are techniques commonly employed in observational research to account for confounding when estimating the effects of treatments and exposures. These methods have been increasingly employed in the acute care surgery literature in an attempt to infer causality; however, the adequacy of reporting and the appropriateness of statistical analyses when using propensity score matching remain unclear. Objectives: The goal of this systematic review is to assess the adequacy of reporting of propensity score methods, with an emphasis on propensity score matching (to assess balance and the use of appropriate statistical tests), in acute care surgery (ACS) studies and to provide suggestions for improvement for junior investigators. Methods: We searched three databases, and other relevant literature (from January 2005 to June 2015) to identify observational studies within the ACS literature using propensity score methods (PROSPERO No: CRD42016036432). Two reviewers extracted data and assessed the quality of the studies retrieved by reviewing the adequacy of both overall reporting and of the propensity score matching methods used. Results: A total of 49/71 (69%) of studies adequately reported propensity score methods overall. Matching was the most common propensity score method used in 46/71 (65%) studies, with 36/46 (78%) studies reporting matching methods adequately. Only 19/46 (41%) of matching studies reported the balance of baseline characteristics between treated and untreated subjects while 6/46 (13%) used correct statistical methods to assess balance. There were 35/46 (76%) of matching studies that explicitly used statistical methods appropriate for the analysis of matched data when estimating the treatment effect and its statistical significance. Conclusion: We have proposed reporting guidelines for the use of propensity score methods in the acute care surgery literature. This is to help investigators improve the adequacy of reporting and statistical analyses when using observational data to estimate effects of treatments and exposures.

AB - Background: Propensity score methods are techniques commonly employed in observational research to account for confounding when estimating the effects of treatments and exposures. These methods have been increasingly employed in the acute care surgery literature in an attempt to infer causality; however, the adequacy of reporting and the appropriateness of statistical analyses when using propensity score matching remain unclear. Objectives: The goal of this systematic review is to assess the adequacy of reporting of propensity score methods, with an emphasis on propensity score matching (to assess balance and the use of appropriate statistical tests), in acute care surgery (ACS) studies and to provide suggestions for improvement for junior investigators. Methods: We searched three databases, and other relevant literature (from January 2005 to June 2015) to identify observational studies within the ACS literature using propensity score methods (PROSPERO No: CRD42016036432). Two reviewers extracted data and assessed the quality of the studies retrieved by reviewing the adequacy of both overall reporting and of the propensity score matching methods used. Results: A total of 49/71 (69%) of studies adequately reported propensity score methods overall. Matching was the most common propensity score method used in 46/71 (65%) studies, with 36/46 (78%) studies reporting matching methods adequately. Only 19/46 (41%) of matching studies reported the balance of baseline characteristics between treated and untreated subjects while 6/46 (13%) used correct statistical methods to assess balance. There were 35/46 (76%) of matching studies that explicitly used statistical methods appropriate for the analysis of matched data when estimating the treatment effect and its statistical significance. Conclusion: We have proposed reporting guidelines for the use of propensity score methods in the acute care surgery literature. This is to help investigators improve the adequacy of reporting and statistical analyses when using observational data to estimate effects of treatments and exposures.

KW - Acute care

KW - Matching

KW - Propensity score

KW - Surgery

KW - Trauma

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85016189836&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85016189836&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00068-017-0786-6

DO - 10.1007/s00068-017-0786-6

M3 - Article

C2 - 28342097

AN - SCOPUS:85016189836

SP - 1

EP - 11

JO - Unfallchirurgie

JF - Unfallchirurgie

SN - 0340-2649

ER -