A RetroSearch Logo

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Search Query:

Showing content from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28376195 below:

Reporting and Guidelines in Propensity Score Analysis: A Systematic Review of Cancer and Cancer Surgical Studies

Review

. 2017 Aug 1;109(8):djw323. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djw323. Reporting and Guidelines in Propensity Score Analysis: A Systematic Review of Cancer and Cancer Surgical Studies

Affiliations

Affiliations

Item in Clipboard

Review

Reporting and Guidelines in Propensity Score Analysis: A Systematic Review of Cancer and Cancer Surgical Studies

Xiaoxin I Yao et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017.

. 2017 Aug 1;109(8):djw323. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djw323. Affiliations

Item in Clipboard

Abstract

Background: : Propensity score (PS) analysis is increasingly being used in observational studies, especially in some cancer studies where random assignment is not feasible. This systematic review evaluates the use and reporting quality of PS analysis in oncology studies.

Methods: : We searched PubMed to identify the use of PS methods in cancer studies (CS) and cancer surgical studies (CSS) in major medical, cancer, and surgical journals over time and critically evaluated 33 CS published in top medical and cancer journals in 2014 and 2015 and 306 CSS published up to November 26, 2015, without earlier date limits. The quality of reporting in PS analysis was evaluated. It was also compared over time and among journals with differing impact factors. All statistical tests were two-sided.

Results: More than 50% of the publications with PS analysis from the past decade occurred within the past two years. Of the studies critically evaluated, a considerable proportion did not clearly provide the variables used to estimate PS (CS 12.1%, CSS 8.8%), incorrectly included non baseline variables (CS 3.4%, CSS 9.3%), neglected the comparison of baseline characteristics (CS 21.9%, CSS 15.6%), or did not report the matching algorithm utilized (CS 19.0%, CSS 36.1%). In CSS, the reporting of the matching algorithm improved in 2014 and 2015 ( P = .04), and the reporting of variables used to estimate PS was better in top surgery journals ( P = .008). However, there were no statistically significant differences for the inclusion of non baseline variables and reporting of comparability of baseline characteristics.

Conclusions: The use of PS in cancer studies has dramatically increased recently, but there is substantial room for improvement in the quality of reporting even in top journals. Herein we have proposed reporting guidelines for PS analyses that are broadly applicable to different areas of medical research that will allow better evaluation and comparison across studies applying this approach.

© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.

Process of literature search: (…

Figure 1.

Process of literature search: ( A ) cancer studies in top medical and…

Figure 1.

Process of literature search: (A) cancer studies in top medical and cancer journals and (B) cancer surgical studies. *Other reasons are given in Supplementary Table 1 (available online).

Figure 2.

Publication trends in cancer studies…

Figure 2.

Publication trends in cancer studies reporting use of propensity score analysis in high-impact…

Figure 2.

Publication trends in cancer studies reporting use of propensity score analysis in high-impact medical/cancer and surgery journals.

Similar articles Cited by References
    1. Pocock SJ, Elbourne DR.. Randomized trials or observational tribulations? N Engl J Med. 2000;34225:1907–1909. - PubMed
    1. Black N. Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ. 1996;3127040:1215–1218. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Silverman SL. From randomized controlled trials to observational studies. Am J Med. 2009;1222:114–120. - PubMed
    1. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB.. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;701:41–55.
    1. D'Agostino RB., Jr. Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med. 1998;1719:2265–2281. - PubMed

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.3