Skip Navigation


American Journal of Epidemiology Advance Access originally published online on March 28, 2007
American Journal of Epidemiology 2007 165(10):1119-1121; doi:10.1093/aje/kwm072
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
165/10/1119    most recent
kwm072v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in Am. J. Epidemiol.
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Oakes, J. M.
Right arrow Articles by Church, T. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Oakes, J. M.
Right arrow Articles by Church, T. R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

American Journal of Epidemiology Copyright © 2007 by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health All rights reserved; printed in U.S.A.

Invited Commentary

Invited Commentary: Advancing Propensity Score Methods in Epidemiology

J. Michael Oakes and Timothy R. Church

Correspondence to Dr. J. Michael Oakes, Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, Minnesota Population Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55454 (e-mail: oakes{at}epi.umn.edu).

Received for publication December 13, 2006. Accepted for publication December 15, 2006.

Every epidemiologist knows that unmeasured confounding is a serious analytic problem, but practically speaking, there seems to be little one can do about it. In this issue of the Journal, Stürmer et al. (Am J Epidemiol 2007:165:1110–18) offer a novel solution that combines propensity score matching methods with measurement error regression models. They call this technique "propensity score calibration" (PSC) and assess its strengths and limitations with simulated data. Their analyses demonstrate that PSC greatly improves inference when the critical assumption of surrogacy holds, but when surrogacy does not hold, PSC estimation can exacerbate bias relative to uncorrected propensity score models. The benefits of propensity score methods (and PSC) lie not only with potentially improved effect estimation but with conceptualization and practice as well.

bias (epidemiology); cohort studies; confounding factors (epidemiology); epidemiologic methods; models, statistical; propensity score calibration; research design

Abbreviations: IV, instrumental variable; OR, odds ratio; PSC, propensity score calibration


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?

Related articles in Am. J. Epidemiol.:

Performance of Propensity Score Calibration—A Simulation Study
Til Stürmer, Sebastian Schneeweiss, Kenneth J. Rothman, Jerry Avorn, and Robert J. Glynn
Am. J. Epidemiol. 2007 165: 1110-1118. [Abstract] [FREE Full Text]  



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am J EpidemiolHome page
T. Sturmer, S. Schneeweiss, K. J. Rothman, J. Avorn, and R. J. Glynn
Sturmer et al. Respond to "Propensity Score Methods in Epidemiology"
Am. J. Epidemiol., May 15, 2007; 165(10): 1122 - 1123.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.