Abstract
Matching is a strategy that can be used to control for confounding at the design stage of observational studies that examine exposure outcome relationships. In case–control studies, matching can be used to generate subsamples of case and control units that are similar with respect to one or more confounders. In cohort studies, matching can balance confounder(s) so that they are the same in exposed and unexposed groups. Matching methods have been extended to include multivariable approaches, the most common being propensity score matching in observation studies of interventions. This chapter describes the major principles of matching applied to case–control, cohort, and propensity score studies. Matched study designs provide several advantages for controlling confounding in observational studies; however, they remain vulnerable to residual confounding, and can even introduce bias when implemented incorrectly.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Rothman KJ (1997) Modern epidemiology, 2nd edn. Sander Greenland, Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA
Siegel DG, Greenhouse SW (1973) Validity in estimating relative risk in case-control studies. J Chronic Dis 26:219–225
Greenland S, Morgenstern H (1990) Matching and efficiency in cohort studies. Am J Epidmiol 131:151–159
Thomas DC, Greenland S (1983) The relative efficiencies of matched and independent sample designs for case-control studies. J Chronic Dis 36:685–697
Walker AM (1982) Efficient assessment of confounder effects in matched cohort studies. Appl Stat 31:293–297
Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70:41–55
Seeger JD, Kurth T, Walker AM (2007) Use of propensity score technique to account for exposure-related covariates: an example and lesson. Med Care 45:S143–S148
Deb S, Austin PC, Tu JV, Ko DT, Mazer CD, Kiss A, Fremes SE (2016) A review of propensity-score methods and their use in cardiovascular research. Can J Cardiol 32(2):259–265
Austin PC (2007) Propensity-score matching in the cardiovascular surgery literature from 2004 to 2006: a systematic review and suggestions for improvement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 134:1128–1135
Rubin DB, Thomas N (1996) Matching using estimated propensity scores: relating theory to practice. Biometrics 52:249–264
Rubin DB (1979) Using multivariate matched sampling and regression adjustment to control bias in observational studies. J Am Stat Assoc 74:318–328
Austin PC, Stuart EA (2017) The performance of inverse probability of treatment weighting and full matching on the propensity score in the presence of model misspecification when estimating the effect of treatment on survival outcomes. Stat Methods Med Res 26(4):1654–1670
Stukel TA, Fisher ES, Wennberg DE, Alter DA, Gottlieb DJ, Vermeulen MJ (2007) Analysis of observational studies in the presence of treatment selection bias. JAMA 297:278–285
Austin PC, Grootendorst P, Anderson GM (2007) 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 26:734–753
Austin PC, Schuster T (2016) The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating absolute effects of treatments on survival outcomes: a simulation study. Stat Methods Med Res 25(5):2214–2237
Stürmer T, Joshi M, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Rothman KJ, Schneeweiss S (2006) A review of the application of propensity score methods yielded increasing use, advantages in specific settings, but not substantially different estimates compared with conventional multivariable methods. J Clin Epidemiol 59:437–447
Kurth T, Walker AM, Glynn RJ, Chan KA, Gaziano JM, Berger K, Robins JM (2006) Results of multivariable logistic regression, propensity matching, propensity adjustment, and propensity based weighting under conditions of non-uniform effect. Am J Epidemiol 163:262–270
Shah BR, Laupacis A, Hux JE, Austin PC (2005) Propensity score methods gave similar results to traditional regression modeling in observational studies: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 58:550–559
Stukel TA, Fisher ES, Wennberg DE, Alter DA, Gottlieb DJ, Vermeulen MJ (2007) Effects of invasive cardiac management on AMI survival using propensity score and instrumental variable methods. JAMA 297(3):278–285
Desai RJ, Franklin JM (2019) Alternative approaches for confounding adjustment in observational studies using weighting based on the propensity score: a primer for practitioners. BMJ 367:l5657
Martens EP, Pestman WR, Boer A, Belitser SV, Klungel OH (2008) Systematic differences in treatment effect estimates between propensity score methods and logistic regression. Int J Epidemiol 2008(37):1142–1147
Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S, Rothman KJ, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Sturmer T (2006) Variable selection for propensity score models. Am J Epidemiol 163:1149–1156
Austin PC (2014) A comparison of 12 algorithms for matching on the propensity score. Stat Med 33(6):1057–1069
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature
About this protocol
Cite this protocol
James, M.T. (2021). Longitudinal Studies 4: Matching Strategies to Evaluate Risk. In: Parfrey, P.S., Barrett, B.J. (eds) Clinical Epidemiology. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 2249. Humana, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-1138-8_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-1138-8_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Humana, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-0716-1137-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-0716-1138-8
eBook Packages: Springer Protocols