Abstract
Medical insurance claims are becoming increasingly common data sources to answer a variety of questions in biomedical research. Although comprehensive in terms of longitudinal characterization of disease development and progression for a potentially large number of patients, population-based inference using these datasets require thoughtful modifications to sample selection and analytic strategies relative to other types of studies. Along with complex selection bias and missing data issues, claims-based studies are purely observational, which limits effective understanding and characterization of the treatment differences between groups being compared. All these issues contribute to a crisis in reproducibility and replication of comparative findings using medical claims. This paper offers practical guidance to the analytical process, demonstrates methods for estimating causal treatment effects with propensity score methods for several types of outcomes common to such studies, such as binary, count, time to event and longitudinally varying measures, and also aims to increase transparency and reproducibility of reporting of results from these investigations. We provide an online version of the paper with readily implementable code for the entire analysis pipeline to serve as a guided tutorial for practitioners. The online version can be accessed at https://rydaro.github.io/. The analytic pipeline is illustrated using a sub-cohort of patients with advanced prostate cancer from the large Clinformatics TM Data Mart Database (OptumInsight, Eden Prairie, Minnesota), consisting of 73 million distinct private payer insures from 2001 to 2016.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ali, M.S., Groenwold, R.H.H., Belitser, S.V., Pestman, W.R., Hoes, A.W., Roes, K.C.B., de Boer, A., Klungel, O.H.: Reporting of covariate selection and balance assessment in propensity score analysis is suboptimal: a systematic review. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 68(2), 122–131 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLINEPI.2014.08.011
Andersen, P.K., Perme, M.P.: Pseudo-observations in survival analysis. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 19(1), 71–99 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280209105020
Andersen, R.: Modern Methods for Robust Regression. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp. 1–6 (2019)
Austin, P.C.: A critical appraisal of propensity-score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003. Stat. Med. 27(12), 2037–2049 (2008a). https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3150
Austin, P.C.: Assessing balance in measured baseline covariates when using many-to-one matching on the propensity-score. Pharmacoepidem. Drug Saf. 17, 1218–1225 (2008b). https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.1674
Austin, P.C.: Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat. Med. 28(25), 3083–3107 (2009a). https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3697
Austin, P.C.: The relative ability of different propensity score methods to balance measured covariates between treated and untreated subjects in observational studies. Med. Decis. Mak. 29(6), 661–677 (2009b). https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X09341755
Austin, P.C.: Optimal caliper widths for propensity- score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharmaceut. Stat. 10(2), 150–161 (2011a). https://doi.org/10.1002/PST.433
Austin, P.C.: An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivar. Behav. Res. 46(3), 399–424 (2011b). https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.568786
Austin, P.C.: Assessing the performance of the generalized propensity score for estimating the effect of quantitative or continuous exposures on binary outcomes. Stat. Med. 37(11), 1874–1894 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.7615
Austin, P.C., Grootendorst, P., Anderson, G.M.: A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study. Stat. Med. 26(4), 734–753 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2580
Barocas, D.A., Penson, D.F.: Racial variation in the pattern and quality of care for prostate cancer in the USA: mind the gap. BJU Int. 106, 322–328 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09467.x
Bates, D., Venables, W.: “Splines Package| R Documentation.” Accessed April 25, 2020. https://www.rdocumentation.org/packages/splines/versions/3.6.2
Berger, M.L., Sox, H., Willke, R.J., Brixner, D.L., Eichler, H.-G., Goettsch, W., Madigan, D., et al.: Good practices for real-world data studies of treatment and/or comparative effectiveness: recommendations from the joint ISPOR-ISPE special task force on real-world evidence in health care decision making. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 26(9), 1033–1039 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.4297
Birnbaum, H.G., Cremieux, P.Y., Greenberg, P.E., LeLorier, J., Ostrander, J., Venditti, L.: Using healthcare claims data for outcomes research and pharmacoeconomic analyses. PharmacoEconomics 16(1), 1–8 (1999). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199916010-00001
Braitman, L.E., Rosenbaum, P.R.: Rare outcomes, common treatments: analytic strategies using propensity scores. Ann. Internal Med. (2002). https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-137-8-200210150-00015
Brookhart, M.A., Schneeweiss, S., Rothman, K.J., Glynn, R.J., Avorn, J., Stürmer, T.: Variable selection for propensity score models. Am. J. Epidemiol. 163(12), 1149–1156 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwj149
Brookhart, M.A., Richard Wyss, J., Layton, B., Stürmer, T.: Propensity score methods for confounding control in nonexperimental research. Circul. Cardiovasc. Quality Outcomes 6(5), 604–611 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.113.000359
Caram, M.E.V., Wang, S., Tsao, P., Griggs, J.J., Miller, D.C., Hollenbeck, B.K., Lin, P., Mukherjee, B.: Patient and provider variables associated with systemic treatment of advanced prostate cancer. Urol. Pract. 6(4), 234–242 (2019a). https://doi.org/10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000020
Caram, M.E.V., Ross, R., Lin, P., Mukherjee, B.: Factors associated with use of sipuleucel-t to treat patients with advanced prostate cancer. JAMA Netw. Open 2(4), e192589 (2019b). https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.2589
CDC: Data Resources| Drug Overdose. Accessed April 25, 2020a. https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/resources/data.html
CMS: Measure Methodology. Accessed April 25, 2020b. https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/HospitalQualityInits/Measure-Methodology
Cole, S.R., Hernan, M.A.: Constructing inverse probability weights for marginal structural models. Am. J. Epidemiol. 168(6), 656–664 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwn164
Conner, S.C., Sullivan, L.M., Benjamin, E.J., LaValley, M.P., Galea, S., Trinquart, L.: Adjusted restricted mean survival times in observational studies. Stat. Med. 38(20), 3832–3860 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.8206
D’Agostino Jr., R.B., Rubin, D.: Estimating and using propensity scores with partially missing data. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 95, 749–759 (2000). https://doi.org/10.2307/2669455
D’Agostino, R., Lang, W., Walkup, M., et al.: Examining the impact of missing data on propensity score estimation in determining the effectiveness of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). Health Serv. Outcomes Res. Method. 2, 291–315 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020375413191
D’Ascenzo, F., Cavallero, E., Biondi-Zoccai, G., et al.: Use and misuse of multivariable approaches in interventional cardiology studies on drug-eluting stents: a systematic review. J Interv Cardiol. 25(6), 611–621 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8183.2012.00753.x
Deb, S., Austin, P.C., Tu, J.V., Ko, D.T., David Mazer, C., Kiss, A., Fremes, S.E.: A review of propensity-score methods and their use in cardiovascular research. Can. J. Cardiol. 32(2), 259–265 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CJCA.2015.05.015
Desai, R.J., Sarpatwari, A., Dejene, S., Khan, N.F., Lii, J., Rogers, J.R., Dutcher, S.K., et al.: Comparative effectiveness of generic and brand-name medication use: a database study of US Health Insurance Claims. PLoS Med. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002763
Dickstein, C., Gehring, R.: Administrative healthcare data a guide to its origin, content, and application using SAS®. SAS Institute (2014)
Elixhauser, A., Claudia Steiner, D., Harris, R., Coffey, R.M.: Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med. Care 36(1), 8–27 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199801000-00004
FDA: Best practices for conducting and reporting pharmacoepidemiologic safety studies using electronic healthcare data sets (2011)
FDA: Framework for FDA’s real-world evidence program (2018)
Garrido, M.M., Kelley, A.S., Paris, J., Roza, K., Meier, D.E., Morrison, R.S., Aldridge, M.D.: Methods for constructing and assessing propensity scores. Health Serv. Res. 49, 1701–1720 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12182
Grimes, D.A.: Epidemiologic research using administrative databases. Obstet. Gynecol. 116(5), 1018–1019 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181f98300
HCUP: Clinical Classifications Software (CCS) for ICD-10-PCS (Beta Version). Accessed April 25, 2020. https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/toolssoftware/ccs10/ccs10.jsp
Hernán, M.A., Robins, J.M.: Using big data to emulate a target trial when a randomized trial is not available. Am. J. Epidemiol. 183(8), 758–764 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwv254
Hirano, K., Imbens, G.W.: The propensity score with continuous treatments. In: Applied Bayesian modeling and causal inference from incomplete-data perspectives: an essential journey with Donald Rubin’s statistical family. Wiley Blackwell, London, pp. 73–84 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1002/0470090456.ch7
Ho, D., Imai, K., King, G., Stuart, E.: Package ‘MatchIt’ title nonparametric preprocessing for parametric causal inference (2018). https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpl013
Hoffman, R.M., Gilliland, F.D., Eley, J.W., et al.: Racial and ethnic differences in advanced-stage prostate cancer: the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 93(5), 388–395 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/93.5.388
Hoover, K.W., Tao, G., Kent, C.K., Aral, S.O.: Epidemiologic research using administrative databases: garbage in, garbage out. Obstet. Gynecol. 117(3), 729 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31820cd18a
Imai, K., Ratkovic, M.: Covariate balancing propensity score. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 76, 243–263 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1111/rssb.12027
Imbens, G.: Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: a review. Rev. Econ. Stat. 86, 4–29 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1162/003465304323023651
Izurieta, H.S., Xiyuan, W., Yun, L., Chillarige, Y., Wernecke, M., Lindaas, A., Pratt, D., et al.: Zostavax vaccine effectiveness among US elderly using real-world evidence: addressing unmeasured confounders by using multiple imputation after linking beneficiary surveys with medicare claims. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 28(7), 993–1001 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.4801
Jackevicius, C.A., Tu, J.V., Krumholz, H.M., Austin, P.C., Ross, J.S., Stukel, T.A., Koh, M., Chong, A., Ko, D.T.: Comparative effectiveness of generic Atorvastatin and Lipitor® in patients hospitalized with an acute coronary syndrome. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 5(4), e003350 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.116.003350
Joffe, M.M., Ten Have, T.R., Feldman, H.I., Kimmel, S.E.: Model selection, confounder control, and marginal structural models. Am. Stat. 58(4), 272–279 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1198/000313004X5824
Johnson, M.L., Crown, W., Martin, B.C., Dormuth, C.R., Siebert, U.: Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: analytic methods to improve causal inference from nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the ISPOR good research practices for retrospective database analysis task force report—part III. Value Health 12(8), 1062–1073 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1524-4733.2009.00602.X
Lee, B.K., Lessler, J., Stuart, E.A.: Improving propensity score weighting using machine learning. Stat. Med. 29(3), 337–346 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3782
Lee, B.K., Lessler, J., Stuart, E.A.: Weight trimming and propensity score weighting. Edited by Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai. PLoS ONE 6(3), e18174 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0018174
Li, F., Morgan, K.L., Zaslavsky, A.M.: Balancing covariates via propensity score weighting. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 113(521), 390–400 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2016.1260466
Lumley, T.: R package “Survey” https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/survey/index.html (2020)
Lunceford, J.K., Davidian, M.: Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of causal treatment effects: a comparative study (2017)
Morgan, S.L., Todd, J.J.: A diagnostic routine for the detection of consequential heterogeneity of causal effects. Sociol. Methodol. 38(1), 231–282 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9531.2008.00204.x
Motheral, B., Brooks, J., Clark, M.A., Crown, W.H., Davey, P., Hutchins, D., Martin, B.C., Stang, P.: A checklist for retrospective database studies—report of the ISPOR task force on retrospective databases. Value Health 6(2), 90–97 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1046/J.1524-4733.2003.00242.X
Nidey, N., Carnahan, R., Carter, K.D., Strathearn, L., Bao, W., Greiner, A., Jelliffee-Pawlowski, L., Tabb, K.M., Ryckman, K.: Association of mood and anxiety disorders and opioid prescription patterns among postpartum women. Am. J. Addict. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1111/ajad.13028
Noe, M.H., Shin, D.B., Doshi, J.A., Margolis, D.J., Gelfand, J.M.: Prescribing patterns associated with biologic therapies for psoriasis from a United States medical records database. J. Drugs Dermatol. JDD 18(8), 745–750 (2019)
Normand, S.-L.T., Landrum, M.B., Guadagnoli, E., Ayanian, J.Z., Ryan, T.J., Cleary, P.D., McNeil, B.J.: Validating recommendations for coronary angiography following acute myocardial infarction in the elderly: a matched analysis using propensity scores. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 54(4), 387–398 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00321-8
O’Neal, W.T., Sandesara, P.B., Claxton, J.S., MacLehose, R.F., Chen, L.Y., Bengtson, L.G.S., Chamberlain, A.M., Norby, F.L., Lutsey, P.L., Alonso, A.: Provider specialty, anticoagulation prescription patterns, and stroke risk in atrial fibrillation. J. Am. Heart Assoc. (2018). https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.117.007943
Patel, C.J., Burford, B., Ioannidis, J.P.A.: Assessment of vibration of effects due to model specification can demonstrate the instability of observational associations. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 68(9), 1046–1058 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.05.029
Perkins, S.M., Wanzhu, T., Underhill, M.G., Zhou, X.-H., Murray, M.D.: The use of propensity scores in pharmacoepidemiologic research. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 9(2), 93–101 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1557(200003/04)9:2%3c93:AID-PDS474%3e3.0.CO;2-I
Robins, J.: A new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with a sustained exposure period-application to control of the healthy worker survivor effect. Math. Model. 7(9–12), 1393–1512 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1016/0270-0255(86)90088-6
Rosenbaum, P.R.: Model-based direct adjustment. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 82(398), 387–394 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1987.10478441
Rosenbaum, P.R., Rubin, D.B.: The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70, 41–55 (1983)
Rosenbaum, P.R., Rubin, D.B.: Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 79(387), 516 (1984). https://doi.org/10.2307/2288398
Rosenbaum, P.R., Rubin, D.B.: The bias due to incomplete matching. Biometrics 41(1), 103–116 (1985a). https://doi.org/10.2307/2530647
Rosenbaum, P., Rubin, D.: Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Am. Stat. 39(1), 33–38 (1985b). https://doi.org/10.2307/2683903
Royston, P., Parmar, M.K.: Restricted mean survival time: an alternative to the hazard ratio for the design and analysis of randomized trials with a time-to-event outcome. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 13, 152 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-152
Rubin, D.B.: Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies 1. J. Educ. Psychol. 66, 688 (1974)
Rubin, D., Thomas, N.: Matching using estimated propensity scores: relating theory to practice. Biometrics 52(1), 249–264 (1996). https://doi.org/10.2307/2533160
Rubin, D.B.: Causal inference using potential outcomes: design, modeling, decisions. (2005). https://doi.org/10.1198/016214504000001880
Schneeweiss, S., Avorn, J.: A review of uses of health care utilization databases for epidemiologic research on therapeutics. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 58(4), 323–337 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.10.012
Setoguchi, S., Sebastian Schneeweiss, M., Brookhart, A., Glynn, R.J., Francis Cook, E.: Evaluating uses of data mining techniques in propensity score estimation: a simulation study. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 17(6), 546–555 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.1555
Sherman, R.E., Anderson, S.A., Dal Pan, G.J., Gray, G.W., Gross, T., Hunter, N.L., LaVange, L., et al.: Real-world evidence—what is it and what can it tell us? N. Engl. J. Med. 375(23), 2293–2297 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsb1609216
Shi, X., Wellman, R., Heagerty, P.J., Nelson, J.C., Cook, A.J.: Safety surveillance and the estimation of risk in select populations: flexible methods to control for confounding while targeting marginal comparisons via standardization. Stat. Med. 39(4), 369–386 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.8410
Snowden, J., Rose, S., Mortimer, K.: Implementation of G-computation on a simulated data set: demonstration of a causal inference technique. Am. J. Epidemiol. (2011). https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/173/7/731/104142
Stefanski, L.A., Boos, D.D.: The calculus of M-estimation. Am. Stat. 56(1), 29–38. (2002). https://doi.org/10.1198/000313002753631330
Stuart, E.A.: Matching methods for causal inference: a review and a look forward. Stat. Sci. A Rev. J. Inst. Math. Stat. 25(1), 1–21 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1214/09-STS313
Stuart, E.A., DuGoff, E., Abrams, M., Salkever, D., Steinwachs, D.: Estimating causal effects in observational studies using electronic health data: challenges and (some) solutions. EGEMS 1(3), 1038 (2013). https://doi.org/10.13063/2327-9214.1038
Susanti, Y., Pratiwi, H., Sulistijowati, S.H., Liana, T.: P A M estimation, S estimation, and M estimation in robust regression. Int. J. Pure Appl. Math. 91(3), 349–60 (2014). https://doi.org/10.12732/ijpam.v91i3.7
Tian, L., Zhao, L., Wei, L.J.: Predicting the restricted mean event time with the subject’s baseline covariates in survival analysis. Biostatistics 15(2), 222–233 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/kxt050
Tyree, P.T., Lind, B.K., Lafferty, W.E.: Challenges of using medical insurance claims data for utilization analysis. Am. J. Med. Quality Offic. J. Am. Coll. Med. Quality 21(4), 269–275 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1177/1062860606288774
Uno, H., Brian Claggett, L., Tian, E.I., Gallo, P., Miyata, T., Schrag, D., et al.: Moving beyond the hazard ratio in quantifying the between-group difference in survival analysis. J. Clin. Oncol. 32(22), 2380–2385 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.55.2208
Van Der Weele, T.J., Ding, P.: Sensitivity analysis in observational research: introducing the E-value. Ann. Intern. Med. 167(4), 268–274 (2017). https://doi.org/10.7326/M16-2607
Vander Weele, T.J.: Principles of confounder selection. Eur. J. Epidemiol. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-019-00494-6
Venkatesh, A.K., Mei, H., Kocher, K.E., Granovsky, M., Obermeyer, Z., Spatz, E.S., Rothenberg, C., Krumholz, H.M., Lin, Z.: Identification of emergency department visits in medicare administrative claims: approaches and implications. Acad. Emerg. Med. 24(4), 422–431 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.13140
von Elm, E., Altman, D.G., Egger, M., Pocock, S.J., Gøtzsche, P.C., Vandenbroucke, J.P.: The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement. Guidel. Report. Observ. Stud. Epidemiol. 18(6), 800–804 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1097/ede.0b013e31815776
Ward, E., Jemal, A., Cokkinides, V., Singh, G.K., Cardinez, C., Ghafoor, A., Thun, M.: Cancer disparities by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. CA: A Cancer J. Clin. 54, 78–93 (2004). https://doi.org/10.3322/canjclin.54.2.78
Weitzen, S., Lapane, K.L., Toledano, A.Y., Hume, A.L., Mor, V.: Principles for modeling propensity scores in medical research: a systematic literature review. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 13(12), 841–853 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.969
Westreich, D., Lessler, J., Funk, M.J.: Propensity score estimation: neural networks, support vector machines, decision trees (CART), and meta-classifiers as alternatives to logistic regression. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 63(8), 826–833 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLINEPI.2009.11.020
Wilson, J., Bock, A.: The benefit of using both claims data and electronic medical record data in health care analysis white paper. Optum Insight (2012)
Wood, S., Pya, N., Safken, B.: Package ‘mgcv’ title mixed GAM computation vehicle with automatic smoothness estimation (2018)
Wyss, R., Girman, C.J., LoCasale, R.J., Brookhart, A.M., Stürmer, T.: Variable selection for propensity score models when estimating treatment effects on multiple outcomes: a simulation study. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 22(1), 77–85 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.3356
Wyss, R., Ellis, A.R., Alan Brookhart, M., Girman, C.J., Funk, M.J., LoCasale, R., Stürmer, T.: The role of prediction modeling in propensity score estimation: an evaluation of logistic regression, BCART, and the covariate-balancing propensity score. Am. J. Epidemiol. 180(6), 645–655 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwu181
Yao, X.I., Wang, X., Speicher, P.J., Hwang, E.S., Cheng, P., Harpole, D.H., Berry, M.F., Schrag, D., Pang, H.H.: Reporting and guidelines in propensity score analysis: a systematic review of cancer and cancer surgical studies. JNCI: J. Natl. Cancer Inst. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djw323
Yu, B., Kumbier, K.: Veridical data science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 117(8), 201901326 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1901326117
Acknowledgements
Dr. Mukherjee is funded by the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center Core Grant P30 CA 046592, University of Michigan Precision Health Initiative and NSF DMS Grant 1712933.
Funding
Dr. Caram is funded by a Prostate Cancer Foundation Young Investigator Award.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ross, R.D., Shi, X., Caram, M.E.V. et al. Veridical causal inference using propensity score methods for comparative effectiveness research with medical claims. Health Serv Outcomes Res Method 21, 206–228 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10742-020-00222-8
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10742-020-00222-8