Renal physiopathology in pre-eclampsia-eclampsia.

C. P. Mccartney,B. Spargo

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Propensity Score Method: a Non-Parametric Technique to Reduce Model Dependence

Zhongheng Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2016.08.57

IF: 3.616

2017-01-01

Annals of Translational Medicine

Abstract:Propensity score analysis (PSA) is a powerful technique that it balances pretreatment covariates, making the causal effect inference from observational data as reliable as possible. The use of PSA in medical literature has increased exponentially in recent years, and the trend continue to rise. The article introduces rationales behind PSA, followed by illustrating how to perform PSA in R with MatchIt package. There are a variety of methods available for PS matching such as nearest neighbors, full matching, exact matching and genetic matching. The task can be easily done by simply assigning a string value to the method argument in the matchit() function. The generic summary() and plot() functions can be applied to an object of class matchit to check covariate balance after matching. Furthermore, there is a useful package PSAgraphics that contains several graphical functions to check covariate balance between treatment groups across strata. If covariate balance is not achieved, one can modify model specifications or use other techniques such as random forest and recursive partitioning to better represent the underlying structure between pretreatment covariates and treatment assignment. The process can be repeated until the desirable covariate balance is achieved.
Propensity Score Methods for Creating Covariate Balance in Observational Studies

Cassandra W. Pattanayak,Donald B. Rubin,Elizabeth R. Zell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rec.2011.06.008

IF: 7.05

2011-01-01

Revista Española de Cardiología

Abstract:Randomization of treatment assignment in experiments generates treatment groups with approximately balanced baseline covariates. However, in observational studies, where treatment assignment is not random, patients in the active treatment and control groups often differ on crucial covariates that are related to outcomes. These covariate imbalances can lead to biased treatment effect estimates. The propensity score is the probability that a patient with particular baseline characteristics is assigned to active treatment rather than control. Though propensity scores are unknown in observational studies, by matching or subclassifying patients on estimated propensity scores, we can design observational studies that parallel randomized experiments, with approximate balance on observed covariates. Observational study designs based on estimated propensity scores can generate approximately unbiased treatment effect estimates. Critically, propensity score designs should be created without access to outcomes, mirroring the separation of study design and outcome analysis in randomized experiments. This paper describes the potential outcomes framework for causal inference and best practices for designing observational studies with propensity scores. We discuss the use of propensity scores in two studies assessing the effectiveness and risks of antifibrinolytic drugs during cardiac surgery.
Using Propensity Scores to Estimate Effects of Treatment Initiation Decisions: State of the Science

Michael Webster-Clark,Til Sturmer,Tiansheng Wang,Kenneth Man,Danica Marinac-Dabic,Kenneth J. Rothman,Alan R. Ellis,Mugdha Gokhale,Mark Lunt,Cynthia Girman,Robert J. Glynn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.8866

2021-01-01

Abstract:Confounding can cause substantial bias in nonexperimental studies that aim to estimate causal effects. Propensity score methods allow researchers to reduce bias from measured confounding by summarizing the distributions of many measured confounders in a single score based on the probability of receiving treatment. This score can then be used to mitigate imbalances in the distributions of these measured confounders between those who received the treatment of interest and those in the comparator population, resulting in less biased treatment effect estimates. This methodology was formalized by Rosenbaum and Rubin in 1983 and, since then, has been used increasingly often across a wide variety of scientific disciplines. In this review article, we provide an overview of propensity scores in the context of real-world evidence generation with a focus on their use in the setting of single treatment decisions, that is, choosing between two therapeutic options. We describe five aspects of propensity score analysis: alignment with the potential outcomes framework, implications for study design, estimation procedures, implementation options, and reporting. We add context to these concepts by highlighting how the types of comparator used, the implementation method, and balance assessment techniques have changed over time. Finally, we discuss evolving applications of propensity scores.
Balance Diagnostics after Propensity Score Matching.

Zhongheng Zhang,Hwa Jung Kim,G. Lonjon,Yibing Zhu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2018.12.10

IF: 3.616

2019-01-01

Annals of Translational Medicine

Abstract:Propensity score matching (PSM) is a popular method in clinical researches to create a balanced covariate distribution between treated and untreated groups. However, the balance diagnostics are often not appropriately conducted and reported in the literature and therefore the validity of the findings from the PSM analysis is not warranted. The special article aims to outline the methods used for assessing balance in covariates after PSM. Standardized mean difference (SMD) is the most commonly used statistic to examine the balance of covariate distribution between treatment groups. Because SMD is independent of the unit of measurement, it allows comparison between variables with different unit of measurement. SMD can be reported with plot. Variance is the second central moment and should also be compared in the matched sample. Finally, a correct specification of the propensity score model (e.g., linearity and additivity) should be re-assessed if there is evidence of imbalance between treated and untreated. R code for the implementation of balance diagnostics is provided and explained.
Estimating the Propensity Score

Guido W. Imbens,Donald B. Rubin

2015-01-01

Abstract:INTRODUCTION Many of the procedures for estimating and assessing causal effects under unconfoundedness involve the propensity score. In practice it is rare that we know the propensity score a priori in settings other than those involving randomized experiments. Such practical settings could have complex designs where the unit-level probabilities differ in known ways. An example is the allocation of admissions to students applying for medical school in The Netherlands in the 1980s and 1990s. Based on high school grades, applicants would be assigned a priority score that determined their probability of getting admitted to medical school. The actual admission to medical school was then based on a (random) lottery. Such settings are rare, however, and a more common situation is where, given the pre-treatment variables available, a researcher views unconfoundedness as a reasonable approximation to the actual assignment mechanism, with only vague a priori information about the form of the dependence of the propensity score on the observed pre-treatment variables. For example, in many medical settings, decisions are based on a set of clinically relevant patient characteristics observed by doctors and entered in patients’ medical records. However, there is typically no explicit rule that requires physicians to choose a specific treatment based on particular values of the pre-treatment variables. In light of this degree of physician discretion, there is no explicitly known form for the propensity score. In such cases, for at least some of the methods for estimating and assessing treatment effects discussed in this part of the book, the researcher needs to estimate the propensity score. In this chapter we discuss some specific methods for doing so. It is important to note that the various methods that will be discussed in the chapters following this one, specifically Chapters 14–17, use the propensity score in different ways. Some of these methods rely more heavily than others on an accurate approximation of the true propensity score by the estimated propensity score.
Propensity scores in the design of observational studies for causal effects

P R Rosenbaum,D B Rubin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/asac054

IF: 3.0279

2022-09-28

Biometrika

Abstract:Summary The design of any study, whether experimental or observational, that is intended to estimate the causal effects of a treatment condition relative to a control condition refers to those activities that precede any examination of outcome variables. As defined in our 1983 article (Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1983), the propensity score is the unit-level conditional probability of assignment to treatment versus control given the observed covariates; so the propensity score explicitly does not involve any outcome variables, in contrast to other summaries of variables sometimes used in observational studies. Balancing the distributions of covariates in the treatment and control groups by matching or balancing on the propensity score is therefore an aspect of the design of the observational study. In this invited comment on our 1983 article, we review the situation in the early 1980s and recall some apparent paradoxes that propensity scores helped to resolve. We demonstrate that it is possible to balance an enormous number of low-dimensional summaries of a high-dimensional covariate, even though it is generally impossible to match individuals closely for all the components of a high-dimensional covariate. In a sense, there is only one crucial observed covariate, the propensity score, and there is one crucial unobserved covariate, the principal unobserved covariate. The propensity score and the principal unobserved covariate are equal when treatment assignment is strongly ignorable, that is, unconfounded. Controlling for observed covariates is a prelude to the crucial step from association to causation, the step that addresses potential biases from unmeasured covariates. The design of an observational study also prepares for the step to causation: by selecting comparisons to increase the design sensitivity, by seeking opportunities to detect bias, by seeking mutually supportive evidence affected by different biases, by incorporating quasi-experimental devices such as multiple control groups, and by including the economist’s instruments. All of these considerations reflect the formal development of sensitivity analyses that were largely informal prior to the 1980s.

statistics & probability,mathematical & computational biology,biology
The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects

Donald B. Rubin,P. Rosenbaum

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/BIOMET/70.1.41

1983-04-01

Abstract:Abstract : The results of observational studies are often disputed because of nonrandom treatment assignment. For example, patients at greater risk may be overrepresented in some treatment group. This paper discusses the central role of propensity scores and balancing scores in the analysis of observational studies. The propensity score is the (estimated) conditional probability of assignment to a particular treatment given a vector of observed covariates. Both large and small sample theory show that adjustment for the scalar propensity score is sufficient to remove bias due to all observed covariates. Applications include: matched sampling on the univariate propensity score which is equal percent bias reducing under more general conditions than required for discriminant matching, multivariate adjustment by subclassification on balancing scores where the same subclasses are used to estimate treatment effects for all outcome variables and in all subpopulations, and visual representation of multivariate adjustment by a two-dimensional plot. (Author)

Mathematics,Economics,Business
Estimating and Using Propensity Scores with Partially Missing Data

Ralph B. D'Agostino,Donald B. Rubin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2669455

IF: 4.369

2000-01-01

Journal of the American Statistical Association

Abstract:Investigators in observational studies have no control over treatment assignment. As a result, large differences can exist between the treatment and control groups on observed covariates, which can lead to badly biased estimates of treatment effects. Propensity score methods are an increasingly popular method for balancing the distribution of the covariates in the two groups to reduce this bias; for example, using matching or subclassification, sometimes in combination with model-based adjustment. To estimate propensity scores, which are the conditional probabilities of being treated given a vector of observed covariates, we must model the distribution of the treatment indicator given these observed covariates. Much work has been done in the case where covariates are fully observed. We address the problem of calculating propensity scores when covariates can have missing values. In such cases, which commonly arise in practice, the pattern of missing covariates can be prognostically important, and then propensity scores should condition both on observed values of covariates and on the observed missing-data indicators. Using the resulting generalized propensity scores to adjust for the observed background differences between treatment and control groups leads, in expectation, to balanced distributions of observed covariates in the treatment and control groups, as well as balanced distributions of patterns of missing data. The methods are illustrated using the generalized propensity scores to create matched samples in a study of the effects of postterm pregnancy.
Five Steps to Successfully Implement and Evaluate Propensity Score Matching in Clinical Research Studies

Steven J. Staffa,David Zurakowski

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0000000000002787

2018-10-01

Abstract:In clinical research, the gold standard level of evidence is the randomized controlled trial (RCT). The availability of nonrandomized retrospective data is growing; however, a primary concern of analyzing such data is comparability of the treatment groups with respect to confounding variables. Propensity score matching (PSM) aims to equate treatment groups with respect to measured baseline covariates to achieve a comparison with reduced selection bias. It is a valuable statistical methodology that mimics the RCT, and it may create an "apples to apples" comparison while reducing bias due to confounding. PSM can improve the quality of anesthesia research and broaden the range of research opportunities. PSM is not necessarily a magic bullet for poor-quality data, but rather may allow the researcher to achieve balanced treatment groups similar to a RCT when high-quality observational data are available. PSM may be more appealing than the common approach of including confounders in a regression model because it allows for a more intuitive analysis of a treatment effect between 2 comparable groups.We present 5 steps that anesthesiologists can use to successfully implement PSM in their research with an example from the 2015 Pediatric National Surgical Quality Improvement Program: a validated, annually updated surgery and anesthesia pediatric database. The first step of PSM is to identify its feasibility with regard to the data at hand and ensure availability of data on any potential confounders. The second step is to obtain the set of propensity scores from a logistic regression model with treatment group as the outcome and the balancing factors as predictors. The third step is to match patients in the 2 treatment groups with similar propensity scores, balancing all factors. The fourth step is to assess the success of the matching with balance diagnostics, graphically or analytically. The fifth step is to apply appropriate statistical methodology using the propensity-matched data to compare outcomes among treatment groups.PSM is becoming an increasingly more popular statistical methodology in medical research. It often allows for improved evaluation of a treatment effect that may otherwise be invalid due to a lack of balance between the 2 treatment groups with regard to confounding variables. PSM may increase the level of evidence of a study and in turn increases the strength and generalizability of its results. Our step-by-step approach provides a useful strategy for anesthesiologists to implement PSM in their future research.

anesthesiology
Propensity Score Analysis with Guaranteed Subgroup Balance

Yan Li,Yong-Fang Kuo,Liang Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.11713

2024-04-18

Abstract:Estimating the causal treatment effects by subgroups is important in observational studies when the treatment effect heterogeneity may be present. Existing propensity score methods rely on a correctly specified propensity score model. Model misspecification results in biased treatment effect estimation and covariate imbalance. We proposed a new algorithm, the propensity score analysis with guaranteed subgroup balance (G-SBPS), to achieve covariate mean balance in all subgroups. We further incorporated nonparametric kernel regression for the propensity scores and developed a kernelized G-SBPS (kG-SBPS) to improve the subgroup mean balance of covariate transformations in a rich functional class. This extension is more robust to propensity score model misspecification. Extensive numerical studies showed that G-SBPS and kG-SBPS improve both subgroup covariate balance and subgroup treatment effect estimation, compared to existing approaches. We applied G-SBPS and kG-SBPS to a dataset on right heart catheterization to estimate the subgroup average treatment effects on the hospital length of stay and a dataset on diabetes self-management training to estimate the subgroup average treatment effects for the treated on the hospitalization rate.

Methodology
Propensity score matching in SPSS

Felix Thoemmes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1201.6385

2012-01-31

Abstract:Propensity score matching is a tool for causal inference in non-randomized studies that allows for conditioning on large sets of covariates. The use of propensity scores in the social sciences is currently experiencing a tremendous increase; however it is far from a commonly used tool. One impediment towards a more wide-spread use of propensity score methods is the reliance on specialized software, because many social scientists still use SPSS as their main analysis tool. The current paper presents an implementation of various propensity score matching methods in SPSS. Specifically the presented SPSS custom dialog allows researchers to specify propensity score methods using the familiar point-and-click interface. The software allows estimation of the propensity score using logistic regression and specifying nearest-neighbor matching with many options, e.g., calipers, region of common support, matching with and without replacement, and matching one to many units. Detailed balance statistics and graphs are produced by the program.

Applications
Robust Estimating Method for Propensity Score Models and its Application to Some Causal Estimands: A review and proposal

Shunichiro Orihara

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2206.05640

2023-01-18

Abstract:In observational study, the propensity score has the central role to estimate causal effects. Since the propensity score is usually unknown, estimating by appropriate procedures is an indispensable step. A point to note that a causal effect estimator might have some bias if a propensity score model was misspecified; valid model construction is important. To overcome the problem, a variety of interesting methods has been proposed. In this paper, we review four methods: using ordinary logistic regression approach; CBPS proposed by Imai and Ratkovic; boosted CART proposed by McCaffrey and colleagues; a semiparametric strategy proposed by Liu and colleagues. Also, we propose the novel robust two step strategy: estimating each candidate model in the first step and integrating them in the second step. We confirm the performance of these methods through simulation examples by estimating the ATE and ATO proposed by Li and colleagues. From the results of the simulation examples, the boosted CART and CBPS with higher-order balancing condition have good properties; both the estimate of the ATE and ATO has the small variance and the absolute value of bias. The boosted CART and CBPS are useful for a variety of estimands and estimating procedures.

Methodology
Propensity Score Analysis With Baseline and Follow-Up Measurements of the Outcome Variable

Peter C Austin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.2436

2024-09-05

Abstract:A common feature in cohort studies is when there is a baseline measurement of the continuous follow-up or outcome variable. Common examples include baseline measurements of physiological characteristics such as blood pressure or heart rate in studies where the outcome is post-baseline measurement of the same variable. Methods incorporating the propensity score are increasingly being used to estimate the effects of treatments using observational studies. We examined six methods for incorporating the baseline value of the follow-up variable when using propensity score matching or weighting. These methods differed according to whether the baseline value of the follow-up variable was included or excluded from the propensity score model, whether subsequent regression adjustment was conducted in the matched or weighted sample to adjust for the baseline value of the follow-up variable, and whether the analysis estimated the effect of treatment on the follow-up variable or on the change from baseline. We used Monte Carlo simulations with 750 scenarios. While no analytic method had uniformly superior performance, we provide the following recommendations: first, when using weighting and the ATE is the target estimand, use an augmented inverse probability weighted estimator or include the baseline value of the follow-up variable in the propensity score model and subsequently adjust for the baseline value of the follow-up variable in a regression model. Second, when the ATT is the target estimand, regardless of whether using weighting or matching, analyze change from baseline using a propensity score that excludes the baseline value of the follow-up variable.
[An Effective Method to Reduce Bias Between Two Compared Groups: Propensity Score].

Shou-jun Zhao,Yong Zhang,Xuan-yi Wang,Yan-ning Gao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/j.issn:0254-6450.2003.06.024

2003-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE:Through introduction of principal theory and algorithm of propensity score to design SAS macro programs for binary data.METHODS:Propensity score method was used to compare the differences of character variables between two groups, and the association of DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) with the mortality of congestive heart failure was evaluated with different methods.RESULTS:Significant differences among the character variables between two groups were effectively balanced with stratification or matching method. The odds ratios of DNR with the in-hospital mortality rate of congestive heart failure were estimated identical with different algorithms and to find that the association of DNR to in-hospital mortality was highly significant.CONCLUSION:Propensity score was a good algorithm that could be used to analyze any kind of observational data for matching the effects among the character variables.
[Application of Propensity Score Matching in the Design of an Epidemiological Study].

Zhi-wen Li,Le Zhang,Jian-meng Liu,Ai-guo Ren

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-6450.2009.05.025

2009-01-01

Abstract:INTRODUCTION:In this article, we presented the rationale and calculation procedures of the propensity score matching (PSM), and its application in the designing stage of an epidemiological study. Based on existing observational data, PSM can be used to select one or more comparable controls for each subject in 'treatment' group according to the propensity scores estimated by 'treatment' variable and main covariates. The results of an example analysis showed that the bias for main confounders between the treated and control samples declined more than 55% after PMS.CONCLUSION:PSM can reduce most of the confounding bias of the observational study, and can obtain approximate study effect to the randomized controlled trials when used in the designing of the epidemiological study.
Propensity score analysis for time-dependent exposure

Zhongheng Zhang,Xiuyang Li,Xiao Wu,Huixian Qiu,Hongying Shi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2020.01.33

IF: 3.616

2020-01-01

Annals of Translational Medicine

Abstract:Propensity score analysis (PSA) is widely used in medical literature to account for confounders. Conventionally, the propensity score (PS) is calculated by a binary logistic regression model using time-fixed covariates. In the presence of time-varying treatment or exposure, the conventional method may cause bias because subjects with early and late exposure are treated as the same. In effect, subjects who are treated latter can be different from those who are treated early. Thus, the conventional PSA must be modified to address this bias. In this paper, we illustrate how to perform analysis in the presence of time-dependent exposure. We conduct a simulation study with a known treatment effect. In the simulation study, we find the PSA method that directly adjust PS estimated by either a binary logistic regression model or a Cox regression model using time-fixed covariates still introduce significant bias. On the other hand, the time-dependent PS matching can help to achieve a result approaching the true effect. After time-dependent PS matching, the matched cohort can be analyzed with conventional Cox regression model or conditional logistic regression (CLR) model with time strata. The performance is comparable to the correctly specified Cox regression model with time-varying covariates (i.e., adjusting the exposure in a multivariable model as a time-varying covariate). We further develop a function called TDPSMQ for time-dependent PS matching and it is applied to a real world dataset.
Comparing Propensity Score-Based Methods in Estimating the Treatment Effects: A Simulation Study

Sara Poletto,Enrico Longato,Erica Tavazzi,Martina Vettoretti

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2408.17385

2024-08-30

Methodology

Abstract:In observational studies, the recorded treatment assignment is not purely random, but it is influenced by external factors such as patient characteristics, reimbursement policies, and existing guidelines. Therefore, the treatment effect can be estimated only after accounting for confounding factors. Propensity score (PS) methods are a family of methods that is widely used for this purpose. Although they are all based on the estimation of the a posteriori probability of treatment assignment given patient covariates, they estimate the treatment effect from different statistical points of view and are, thus, relatively hard to compare. In this work, we propose a simulation experiment in which a hypothetical cohort of subjects is simulated in seven scenarios of increasing complexity of the associations between covariates and treatment, but where the two main definitions of treatment effect (average treatment effect, ATE, and average effect of the treatment on the treated, ATT) coincide. Our purpose is to compare the performance of a wide array of PS-based methods (matching, stratification, and inverse probability weighting) in estimating the treatment effect and their robustness in different scenarios. We find that inverse probability weighting provides estimates of the treatment effect that are closer to the expected value by weighting all subjects of the starting population. Conversely, matching and stratification ensure that the subpopulation that generated the final estimate is made up of real instances drawn from the starting population, and, thus, provide a higher degree of control on the validity domain of the estimates.
Subgroup Balancing Propensity Score

Jing Dong,Junni L. Zhang,Shuxi Zeng,Fan Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280219870836

IF: 2.494

2019-01-01

Statistical Methods in Medical Research

Abstract:This paper concerns estimation of subgroup treatment effects with observational data. Existing propensity score methods are mostly developed for estimating overall treatment effect. Although the true propensity scores balance covariates in any subpopulations, the estimated propensity scores may result in severe imbalance in subgroup samples. Indeed, subgroup analysis amplifies a bias-variance tradeoff, whereby increasing complexity of the propensity score model may help to achieve covariate balance within subgroups, but it also increases variance. We propose a new method, the subgroup balancing propensity score, to ensure good subgroup balance as well as to control the variance inflation. For each subgroup, the subgroup balancing propensity score chooses to use either the overall sample or the subgroup (sub)sample to estimate the propensity scores for the units within that subgroup, in order to optimize a criterion accounting for a set of covariate-balancing moment conditions for both the overall sample and the subgroup samples. We develop two versions of subgroup balancing propensity score corresponding to matching and weighting, respectively. We devise a stochastic search algorithm to estimate the subgroup balancing propensity score when the number of subgroups is large. We demonstrate through simulations that the subgroup balancing propensity score improves the performance of propensity score methods in estimating subgroup treatment effects. We apply the subgroup balancing propensity score method to the Italy Survey of Household Income and Wealth (SHIW) to estimate the causal effects of having debit card on household consumption for different income groups.
Propensity Score Matching and Causal Inference: A methodological review

David Weisburd,David B. Wilson,Alese Wooditch,Chester Britt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.19934/j.cnki.shxyj.2012.01.010

2012-01-01

Abstract:Propensity score matching method has attracted more and more attention as sociological studies begin to pay closer attention to causal relationship. This article reviews the method from the following aspects. First, the author systematically reviews the history and development of propensity score matching as well as its implications for sociological survey research. Second, this research demonstrates how to perform propensity score matching using an example. Third, based on Mill's discussion on causality and statistical counterfactual framework, this article shows how propensity score matching contributes to causal conclusion by controlling for confounding variables and satisfying the unconfoundedness assumption. Fourth, this paper compares propensity score matching with regression discontinuity design and instrumental variable method. Finally, after summarizing the major limitations of propensity score matching, this article discusses the newly development of propensity score matching in recent years.
Propensity score weighting for causal inference with multiple treatments

Fan Li,Fan Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1214/19-aoas1282

2019-12-01

The Annals of Applied Statistics

Abstract:Fan Li, Fan Li. Causal or unconfounded descriptive comparisons between multiple groups are common in observational studies. Motivated from a racial disparity study in health services research, we propose a unified propensity score weighting framework, the balancing weights, for estimating causal effects with multiple treatments. These weights incorporate the generalized propensity scores to balance the weighted covariate distribution of each treatment group, all weighted toward a common prespecified target population. The class of balancing weights include several existing approaches such as the inverse probability weights and trimming weights as special cases. Within this framework, we propose a set of target estimands based on linear contrasts. We further develop the generalized overlap weights, constructed as the product of the inverse probability weights and the harmonic mean of the generalized propensity scores. The generalized overlap weighting scheme corresponds to the target population with the most overlap in covariates across the multiple treatments. These weights are bounded and thus bypass the problem of extreme propensities. We show that the generalized overlap weights minimize the total asymptotic variance of the moment weighting estimators for the pairwise contrasts within the class of balancing weights. We consider two balance check criteria and propose a new sandwich variance estimator for estimating the causal effects with generalized overlap weights. We apply these methods to study the racial disparities in medical expenditure between several racial groups using the 2009 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) data. Simulations were carried out to compare with existing methods.

Renal physiopathology in pre-eclampsia-eclampsia.

Propensity Score Method: a Non-Parametric Technique to Reduce Model Dependence

Propensity Score Methods for Creating Covariate Balance in Observational Studies

Using Propensity Scores to Estimate Effects of Treatment Initiation Decisions: State of the Science

Balance Diagnostics after Propensity Score Matching.

Estimating the Propensity Score

Propensity scores in the design of observational studies for causal effects

The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects

Estimating and Using Propensity Scores with Partially Missing Data

Five Steps to Successfully Implement and Evaluate Propensity Score Matching in Clinical Research Studies

Propensity Score Analysis with Guaranteed Subgroup Balance

Propensity score matching in SPSS

Robust Estimating Method for Propensity Score Models and its Application to Some Causal Estimands: A review and proposal

Propensity Score Analysis With Baseline and Follow-Up Measurements of the Outcome Variable

[An Effective Method to Reduce Bias Between Two Compared Groups: Propensity Score].

[Application of Propensity Score Matching in the Design of an Epidemiological Study].

Propensity score analysis for time-dependent exposure

Comparing Propensity Score-Based Methods in Estimating the Treatment Effects: A Simulation Study

Subgroup Balancing Propensity Score

Propensity Score Matching and Causal Inference: A methodological review

Propensity score weighting for causal inference with multiple treatments