Abstract
Matching is a strategy that can be used to control for confounding at the design stage of observational studies that examine exposure–outcome relationships. In case–control studies, matching can be used to generate subsamples of case and control units that are similar with respect to one or more confounders. In cohort studies, matching can balance confounder(s) so that they are the same in exposed and unexposed groups. Matching methods have been extended to include multivariable approaches, the most common being propensity score matching in observation studies of interventions. This chapter describes the major principles of matching applied to case–control, cohort, and propensity score studies. Matched study designs provide several advantages for controlling confounding in observational studies; however, they remain vulnerable to residual confounding and can even introduce bias when implemented incorrectly.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Rothman KJ, Greenland S (1998) Modern epidemiology, 2nd edn. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA
Siegel DG, Greenhouse SW (1973) Validity in estimating relative risk in case-control studies. J Chronic Dis 26:219–225
Greenland S, Morgenstern H (1990) Matching and efficiency in cohort studies. Am J Epidmiol 131:151–159
Thomas DC, Greenland S (1983) The relative efficiencies of matched and independent sample designs for case-control studies. J Chronic Dis 36:685–697
Walker AM (1982) Efficient assessment of confounder effects in matched cohort studies. Appl Stat 31:293–297
Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70:41–55
Seeger JD, Kurth T, Walker AM (2007) Use of propensity score technique to account for exposure-related covariates: an example and lesson. Med Care 45:S143–S148
Austin PC (2007) Propensity-score matching in the cardiovascular surgery literature from 2004 to 2006: a systematic review and suggestions for improvement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 134:1128–1135
Rubin DB, Thomas N (1996) Matching using estimated propensity scores: relating theory to practice. Biometrics 52:249–264
Rubin DB (1979) Using multivariate matched sampling and regression adjustment to control bias in observational studies. J Am Stat Assoc 74:318–328
Stukel TA, Fisher ES, Wennberg DE, Alter DA, Gottlieb DJ, Vermeulen MJ (2007) Analysis of observational studies in the presence of treatment selection bias. JAMA 297:278–285
Austin PC, Grootendorst P, Anderson GM (2007) A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study. Stat Med 26:734–753
Kurth T, Walker AM, Glynn RJ, Chan KA, Gaziano JM, Berger K, Robins JM (2006) Results of multivariable logistic regression, propensity matching, propensity adjustment, and propensity based weighting under conditions of non-uniform effect. Am J Epidemiol 163:262–270
Shah BR, Laupacis A, Hux JE, Austin PC (2005) Propensity score methods gave similar results to traditional regression modeling in observational studies: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 58:550–559
Sturmer T, Joshi M, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Rothman KJ, Schneeweiss S (2006) A review of the application of propensity score methods yielded increasing use, advantages in specific settings, but not substantially different estimates compared with conventional multivariable methods. J Clin Epidemiol 59:437–447
Stukel TA, Fisher ES, Wennberg DE, Alter DA, Gottlieb DJ, Vermeulen MJ (2007) Effects of invasive cardiac management on ami survival using propensity score and instrumental variable methods. JAMA 297(3):278–285
Martens EP, Pestman WR, Boer A, Belitser SV, Klungel OH (2008) Systematic differences in treatment effect estimates between propensity score methods and logistic regression. Int J Epidemiol 2008(37):1142–1147
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this protocol
Cite this protocol
James, M.T. (2015). Longitudinal Studies 4: Matching Strategies to Evaluate Risk. In: Parfrey, P., Barrett, B. (eds) Clinical Epidemiology. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 1281. Humana Press, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2428-8_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2428-8_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Humana Press, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-2427-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-2428-8
eBook Packages: Springer Protocols