References
Choi J, Dekkers OM, le Cessie S. A comparison of different methods to handle missing data in the context of propensity score analysis. Eur J Epidemiol. 2019;34(1):23–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-018-0447-z.
Leyrat C, Seaman SR, White IR, Douglas I, Smeeth L, Kim J, et al. Propensity score analysis with partially observed covariates: How should multiple imputation be used? Stat Methods Med Res. 2019;28(1):3–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280217713032.
Austin PC. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios. Stat Med. 2007;26(16):3078–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2781.
Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70(1):41–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/70.1.41.
White IR, Carlin JB. Bias and efficiency of multiple imputation compared with complete-case analysis for missing covariate values. Stat Med. 2010;29(28):2920–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3944.
Acknowledgment
This research was supported in part by the National Cancer Institute for the Mays Cancer Center (P30CA054174) at the UT Health Science Center at San Antonio.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Choi, B.Y., Gelfond, J. The validity of propensity score analysis using complete cases with partially observed covariates. Eur J Epidemiol 35, 87–88 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-019-00538-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-019-00538-x