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
  • [21] Logistic Regression With Multiple Random Effects: A Simulation Study of Estimation Methods and Statistical Packages
    Kim, Yoonsang
    Choi, Young-Ku
    Emery, Sherry
    AMERICAN STATISTICIAN, 2013, 67 (03): : 171 - 182
  • [22] EFFICACY OF PHOTOTHERAPY FOR JAUNDICED NEWBORNS: COMPARISON OF LOGISTIC REGRESSION, PROPENSITY SCORE AND INSTRUMENTAL VARIABLE ANALYSES
    Newman, T.
    McCulloch, C.
    Vittinghoff, E.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2010, 171 : S107 - S107
  • [23] Estimators and confidence intervals for the marginal odds ratio using logistic regression and propensity score stratification
    Stampf, Susanne
    Graf, Erika
    Schmoor, Claudia
    Schumacher, Martin
    STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2010, 29 (7-8) : 760 - 769
  • [24] Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders
    Cepeda, MS
    Boston, R
    Farrar, JT
    Strom, BL
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2003, 158 (03) : 280 - 287
  • [25] Handling Imbalanced Data With Weighted Logistic Regression and Propensity Score Matching methods: The Case of P2P Money Transfers
    Agrawal, Lavlin
    Mulgund, Pavankumar
    Sharman, Raj
    JOURNAL OF DATABASE MANAGEMENT, 2024, 35 (01) : 1 - 37
  • [26] Comparing Propensity Score Estimation Using Logistic Regression and Generalized Boosted Regression in a Real-World Comparative Effectiveness Study of Glaucoma Therapies (RiGOR)
    Bosco, Jaclyn L. F.
    Franke, Kristina
    Coleman, Anne L.
    Lum, Flora C.
    Gliklich, Richard
    Su, Zhaohui
    Velentgas, Priscilla
    PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, 2013, 22 : 31 - 32
  • [27] Balance of Controlled and Uncontrolled Covariates as a Function of Propensity Score Variable Selection Methods: A Simulation Study
    Wyss, R.
    Stedman, M. R.
    Brookhart, M. A.
    Rothman, K. J.
    Glynn, R.
    Poole, C.
    Seeger, J. D.
    Stuermer, T.
    PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, 2011, 20 : S350 - S350
  • [28] Propensity score approaches with multilevel data: A simulation study
    Borges, Gabriela L.
    Moreira, Marisleane
    Sanni Ali, M.
    Barreto, Mauricio L.
    Smeeth, Liam
    Fiaccone, Rosemeire L.
    PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, 2020, 29 : 387 - 387
  • [29] Propensity score balance measures in pharmacoepidemiology: a simulation study
    Ali, M. Sanni
    Groenwold, Rolf H. H.
    Pestman, Wiebe R.
    Belitser, Svetlana V.
    Roes, Kit C. B.
    Hoes, Arno W.
    de Boer, Anthonius
    Klungel, Olaf H.
    PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, 2014, 23 (08) : 802 - 811
  • [30] Performance of propensity score calibration- : A simulation study
    Sturmer, Til
    Schneeweiss, Sebastian
    Rothman, Kenneth J.
    Avorn, Jerry
    Glynn, Robert J.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2007, 165 (10) : 1110 - 1118