Propensity Score Matching: Retrospective Randomization?

Randomized controlled trials are viewed as the optimal study design. In this commentary, we explore the strength of this design and its complexity. We also discuss some situations in which these trials are not possible, or not ethical, or not economical. In such situations, specifically, in retrospe...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inThe Journal of foot and ankle surgery Vol. 56; no. 2; pp. 417 - 420
Main Author Jupiter, Daniel C.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States Elsevier Inc 01.03.2017
Subjects
Case-Control Studies
Humans
indication bias
Orthopedics
Propensity Score
propensity score matching
Random Allocation
randomized controlled trial
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Research Design
propensity score matching
indication bias
randomized controlled trial
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Randomized controlled trials are viewed as the optimal study design. In this commentary, we explore the strength of this design and its complexity. We also discuss some situations in which these trials are not possible, or not ethical, or not economical. In such situations, specifically, in retrospective studies, we should make every effort to recapitulate the rigor and strength of the randomized trial. However, we could be faced with an inherent indication bias in such a setting. Thus, we consider the tools available to address that bias. Specifically, we examine matching and introduce and explore a new tool: propensity score matching. This tool allows us to group subjects according to their propensity to be in a particular treatment group and, in so doing, to account for the indication bias.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:1067-2516
1542-2224
DOI:10.1053/j.jfas.2017.01.013