Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Health Serv Res. 2014 Jun;49(3):1074-82. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12152. Epub 2014 Jan 24.
In their recent Health Services Research article titled "Squeezing the Balloon: Propensity Scores and Unmeasured Covariate Balance," Brooks and Ohsfeldt (2013) addressed an important topic on the balancing property of the propensity score (PS) with respect to unmeasured covariates. They concluded that PS methods that balance measured covariates between treated and untreated subjects exacerbate imbalance in unmeasured covariates that are unrelated to measured covariates. Furthermore, they emphasized that for PS algorithms, an imbalance on unmeasured covariates between treatment and untreated subjects is a necessary condition to achieve balance on measured covariates between the groups. We argue that these conclusions are the results of their assumptions on the mechanism of treatment allocation. In addition, we discuss the underlying assumptions of PS methods, their advantages compared with multivariate regression methods, as well as the interpretation of the effect estimates from PS methods.
在他们最近发表的一篇题为“挤压气球:倾向评分和未测量协变量平衡”的卫生服务研究文章中,Brooks 和 Ohsfeldt(2013 年)探讨了一个关于倾向评分(PS)在未测量协变量方面的平衡性质的重要问题。他们得出的结论是,PS 方法在处理和未处理的受试者之间平衡了已测量的协变量,但会加剧与已测量的协变量无关的未测量协变量的不平衡。此外,他们强调,对于 PS 算法,在处理和未处理的受试者之间,未测量的协变量不平衡是在两组之间平衡已测量的协变量的必要条件。我们认为这些结论是他们对治疗分配机制的假设的结果。此外,我们还讨论了 PS 方法的基本假设、它们与多元回归方法相比的优势,以及 PS 方法的效果估计的解释。