EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
53,623,987
Abstracts:
29,492,080
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

Potential Pitfalls of Reporting and Bias in Observational Studies With Propensity Score Analysis Assessing a Surgical Procedure: A Methodological Systematic Review



Potential Pitfalls of Reporting and Bias in Observational Studies With Propensity Score Analysis Assessing a Surgical Procedure: A Methodological Systematic Review



Annals of Surgery 265(5): 901-909



Label="OBJECTIVE">To describe the evolution of the use and reporting of propensity score (PS) analysis in observational studies assessing a surgical procedure.Label="BACKGROUND">Assessing surgery in randomized controlled trials raises several challenges. Observational studies with PS analysis are a robust alternative for comparative effectiveness research.Label="METHODS">In this methodological systematic review, we identified all PubMed reports of observational studies with PS analysis that evaluated a surgical procedure and described the evolution of their use over time. Then, we selected a sample of articles published from August 2013 to July 2014 and systematically appraised the quality of reporting and potential bias of the PS analysis used.Label="RESULTS">We selected 652 reports of observational studies with PS analysis. The publications increased over time, from 1 report in 1987 to 198 in 2013. Among the 129 reports assessed, 20% (n = 24) did not detail the covariates included in the PS and 77% (n = 100) did not report a justification for including these covariates in the PS. The rate of missing data for potential covariates was reported in 9% of articles. When a crossover by conversion was possible, only 14% of reports (n = 12) mentioned this issue. For matched analysis, 10% of articles reported all 4 key elements that allow for reproducibility of a PS-matched analysis (matching ratio, method to choose the nearest neighbors, replacement and method for statistical analysis).Label="CONCLUSIONS">Observational studies with PS analysis in surgery are increasing in frequency, but specific methodological issues and weaknesses in reporting exist.

(PDF same-day service: $19.90)

Accession: 058585048

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 27232253

DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001797



Related references

Reporting and Guidelines in Propensity Score Analysis: A Systematic Review of Cancer and Cancer Surgical Studies. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 109(8): -, 2017

A systematic review of propensity score methods in the acute care surgery literature: avoiding the pitfalls and proposing a set of reporting guidelines. European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery, 2017

The role of valve surgery in infective endocarditis management: a systematic review of observational studies that included propensity score analysis. American Heart Journal 156(5): 901-909, 2008

Reporting of covariate selection and balance assessment in propensity score analysis is suboptimal: a systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 68(2): 112-121, 2015

Poor quality of reporting confounding bias in observational intervention studies: a systematic review. Annals of Epidemiology 18(10): 746-751, 2008

Performing both propensity score and instrumental variable analyses in observational studies often leads to discrepant results: a systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 68(10): 1232-1240, 2016

Propensity score methods gave similar results to traditional regression modeling in observational studies: a systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 58(6): 550-559, 2005

Analysis of observational studies in the presence of treatment selection bias: effects of invasive cardiac management on AMI survival using propensity score and instrumental variable methods. JAMA 297(3): 278-285, 2007

Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients at low surgical risk: A meta-analysis of randomized trials and propensity score matched observational studies. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, 2018

Instruments for assessing risk of bias and other methodological criteria of published animal studies: a systematic review. Environmental Health Perspectives 121(9): 985-992, 2014

Propensity Score Methods for Bias Reduction in Observational Studies of Treatment Effect. Rheumatic Disease Clinics of North America 44(2): 203-213, 2018

Propensity Score Methods for Bias Reduction in Observational Studies of Treatment Effect. Rheumatic Diseases Clinics of North America 44(2): 203-213, 2018

Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. International Journal of Epidemiology 36(3): 666-676, 2007

Reporting, handling and assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant data in systematic reviews: a methodological survey. Bmj Open 5(9): E009368-E009368, 2016

Reporting quality of statistical methods in surgical observational studies: protocol for systematic review. Systematic Reviews 3(): 70-70, 2014