Logistic regression frequently outperformed propensity score methods especially for large datasets: a simulation study

被引:19
|
作者
Wilkinson, Jack D. [1 ]
Mamas, Mamas A. [2 ]
Kontopantelis, Evangelos [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Manchester, Fac Biol, Ctr Biostat, Manchester Acad Hlth Sci Ctr, Rm 1-307 Jean McFarlane Bldg,Univ Pl,Oxford Rd, Manchester M13 9PL, England
[2] Keele Univ, Ctr Prognosis Res, Keele Cardiovasc Res Grp, Keele, England
[3] Univ Manchester, Div Informat Imaging & Data Sci, Manchester, England
基金
英国惠康基金;
关键词
Confounding; Propensity scores; Odds ratio; Marginal odds ratio; Regression standardization; Logistic regression; Simulation study; ADJUSTMENT;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.09.009
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Objectives: In observational studies, researchers must select a method to control for confounding. Options include propensity score (PS) methods and regression. It remains unclear how dataset characteristics (size, overlap in PSs, and exposure prevalence) influence the relative performance of the methods. Study Design and Setting: A simulation study to evaluate the role of dataset characteristics on the performance of PS methods, compared to logistic regression, for estimating a marginal odds ratio was conducted. Dataset size, overlap in PSs, and exposure prevalence were varied. Results: Regression showed poor coverage for small sample sizes, but with large sample sizes was relatively robust to imbalance in PSs and low exposure prevalence. PS methods displayed suboptimal coverage as overlap in PSs decreased, which was exacerbated at larger sample sizes. Power of matching methods was particularly affected by a lack of overlap, low exposure prevalence, and small sample size. The advantage of regression for large data size was reduced in sensitivity analysis with a complementary log -log outcome generation mechanism and unmeasured confounding, with superior bias and error but inferior coverage to matching methods. Conclusion: Dataset characteristics influence performance of methods for confounder adjustment. In many scenarios, regression may be the preferable option. (c) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:176 / 184
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] The Comparative Performance of Logistic Regression and Random Forest in Propensity Score Methods: a Simulation Study
    Ali, M. Sanni
    Khalid, Sara
    Collins, Gary S.
    Prieto-Alhambra, Daniel
    PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, 2017, 26 : 489 - 489
  • [2] An important advantage of propensity score methods compared to logistic regression analysis
    Martens, Edwin P.
    Pestman, Wiebe R.
    de Boer, Anthonius
    Belitser, Svetlana V.
    Klungel, Olaf H.
    PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, 2007, 16 : S114 - S114
  • [3] COMPARISON OF MULTIVARIABLE-ADJUSTED LOGISTIC REGRESSION WITH PROPENSITY SCORE-MATCHED, PROPENSITY SCORE-STRATIFIED, AND PROPENSITY SCORE-ADJUSTED LOGISTIC REGRESSION MODELS
    Khoza, S.
    Barner, J. C.
    Richards, K.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2011, 14 (03) : A92 - A93
  • [4] The Impact of Overfitting Logistic Propensity Score Models: A Simulation Study
    Wyss, Richard
    Franklin, Jessica M.
    PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, 2017, 26 : 529 - 529
  • [5] A pragmatic comparison of logistic regression versus machine learning methods for propensity score estimation
    Beachler, Daniel
    Mai, Xiaodan
    Teng, Chia-Chen Jenny
    Gao, Yuewen
    Governor, Samuel B.
    He, Xintong
    Hoffman, Sarah
    Kalloo, Geetika
    PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, 2022, 31 : 557 - 558
  • [6] Systematic differences in treatment effect estimates between propensity score methods and logistic regression
    Martens, Edwin P.
    Pestman, Wiebe R.
    de Boer, Anthonius
    Belitser, Svetlana V.
    Klungel, Olaf H.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2008, 37 (05) : 1142 - 1147
  • [7] Estimation of propensity score using spatial logistic regression
    Nisa, Hilwin
    Mitakda, Maria B. T.
    Astutik, Suci
    9TH ANNUAL BASIC SCIENCE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE 2019 (BASIC 2019), 2019, 546
  • [8] Performance evaluation of some propensity score matching methods by using binary logistic regression model
    Olmus, Hulya
    Bespinar, Esra
    Nazman, Ezgi
    COMMUNICATIONS IN STATISTICS-SIMULATION AND COMPUTATION, 2022, 51 (04) : 1647 - 1660
  • [9] Propensity score methods for merging observational and experimental datasets
    Rosenman, Evan T. R.
    Owen, Art B.
    Baiocchi, Mike
    Banack, Hailey R.
    STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2022, 41 (01) : 65 - 86
  • [10] Multinomial Extension of Propensity Score Trimming Methods: A Simulation Study
    Yoshida, Kazuki
    Solomon, Daniel H.
    Haneuse, Sebastien
    Kim, Seoyoung C.
    Patorno, Elisabetta
    Tedeschi, Sara K.
    Lyu, Houchen
    Franklin, Jessica M.
    Sturmer, Til
    Hernandez-Diaz, Sonia
    Glynn, Robert J.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2019, 188 (03) : 609 - 616