Propensity Score Methods in Health Technology Assessment: Principles, Extended Applications, and Recent Advances

Randomized clinical trials (RCT) are accepted as the gold-standard approaches to measure effects of intervention or treatment on outcomes. They are also the designs of choice for health technology assessment (HTA). Randomization ensures comparability, in both measured and unmeasured pretreatment cha...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: M Sanni Ali, Daniel Prieto-Alhambra, Luciane Cruz Lopes, Dandara Ramos, Nivea Bispo, Maria Y. Ichihara, Julia M. Pescarini, Elizabeth Williamson, Rosemeire L. Fiaccone, Mauricio L. Barreto, Liam Smeeth
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-09-01
Series:Frontiers in Pharmacology
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fphar.2019.00973/full
id doaj-fddb553603cc453f9bc37743dce49601
record_format Article
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author M Sanni Ali
M Sanni Ali
M Sanni Ali
Daniel Prieto-Alhambra
Daniel Prieto-Alhambra
Luciane Cruz Lopes
Dandara Ramos
Nivea Bispo
Maria Y. Ichihara
Maria Y. Ichihara
Julia M. Pescarini
Elizabeth Williamson
Rosemeire L. Fiaccone
Rosemeire L. Fiaccone
Rosemeire L. Fiaccone
Mauricio L. Barreto
Mauricio L. Barreto
Liam Smeeth
Liam Smeeth
spellingShingle M Sanni Ali
M Sanni Ali
M Sanni Ali
Daniel Prieto-Alhambra
Daniel Prieto-Alhambra
Luciane Cruz Lopes
Dandara Ramos
Nivea Bispo
Maria Y. Ichihara
Maria Y. Ichihara
Julia M. Pescarini
Elizabeth Williamson
Rosemeire L. Fiaccone
Rosemeire L. Fiaccone
Rosemeire L. Fiaccone
Mauricio L. Barreto
Mauricio L. Barreto
Liam Smeeth
Liam Smeeth
Propensity Score Methods in Health Technology Assessment: Principles, Extended Applications, and Recent Advances
Frontiers in Pharmacology
bias
confounding
effectiveness
health technology assessment
propensity score
safety
author_facet M Sanni Ali
M Sanni Ali
M Sanni Ali
Daniel Prieto-Alhambra
Daniel Prieto-Alhambra
Luciane Cruz Lopes
Dandara Ramos
Nivea Bispo
Maria Y. Ichihara
Maria Y. Ichihara
Julia M. Pescarini
Elizabeth Williamson
Rosemeire L. Fiaccone
Rosemeire L. Fiaccone
Rosemeire L. Fiaccone
Mauricio L. Barreto
Mauricio L. Barreto
Liam Smeeth
Liam Smeeth
author_sort M Sanni Ali
title Propensity Score Methods in Health Technology Assessment: Principles, Extended Applications, and Recent Advances
title_short Propensity Score Methods in Health Technology Assessment: Principles, Extended Applications, and Recent Advances
title_full Propensity Score Methods in Health Technology Assessment: Principles, Extended Applications, and Recent Advances
title_fullStr Propensity Score Methods in Health Technology Assessment: Principles, Extended Applications, and Recent Advances
title_full_unstemmed Propensity Score Methods in Health Technology Assessment: Principles, Extended Applications, and Recent Advances
title_sort propensity score methods in health technology assessment: principles, extended applications, and recent advances
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
series Frontiers in Pharmacology
issn 1663-9812
publishDate 2019-09-01
description Randomized clinical trials (RCT) are accepted as the gold-standard approaches to measure effects of intervention or treatment on outcomes. They are also the designs of choice for health technology assessment (HTA). Randomization ensures comparability, in both measured and unmeasured pretreatment characteristics, of individuals assigned to treatment and control or comparator. However, even adequately powered RCTs are not always feasible for several reasons such as cost, time, practical and ethical constraints, and limited generalizability. RCTs rely on data collected on selected, homogeneous population under highly controlled conditions; hence, they provide evidence on efficacy of interventions rather than on effectiveness. Alternatively, observational studies can provide evidence on the relative effectiveness or safety of a health technology compared to one or more alternatives when provided under the setting of routine health care practice. In observational studies, however, treatment assignment is a non-random process based on an individual’s baseline characteristics; hence, treatment groups may not be comparable in their pretreatment characteristics. As a result, direct comparison of outcomes between treatment groups might lead to biased estimate of the treatment effect. Propensity score approaches have been used to achieve balance or comparability of treatment groups in terms of their measured pretreatment covariates thereby controlling for confounding bias in estimating treatment effects. Despite the popularity of propensity scores methods and recent important methodological advances, misunderstandings on their applications and limitations are all too common. In this article, we present a review of the propensity scores methods, extended applications, recent advances, and their strengths and limitations.
topic bias
confounding
effectiveness
health technology assessment
propensity score
safety
url https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fphar.2019.00973/full
work_keys_str_mv AT msanniali propensityscoremethodsinhealthtechnologyassessmentprinciplesextendedapplicationsandrecentadvances
AT msanniali propensityscoremethodsinhealthtechnologyassessmentprinciplesextendedapplicationsandrecentadvances
AT msanniali propensityscoremethodsinhealthtechnologyassessmentprinciplesextendedapplicationsandrecentadvances
AT danielprietoalhambra propensityscoremethodsinhealthtechnologyassessmentprinciplesextendedapplicationsandrecentadvances
AT danielprietoalhambra propensityscoremethodsinhealthtechnologyassessmentprinciplesextendedapplicationsandrecentadvances
AT lucianecruzlopes propensityscoremethodsinhealthtechnologyassessmentprinciplesextendedapplicationsandrecentadvances
AT dandararamos propensityscoremethodsinhealthtechnologyassessmentprinciplesextendedapplicationsandrecentadvances
AT niveabispo propensityscoremethodsinhealthtechnologyassessmentprinciplesextendedapplicationsandrecentadvances
AT mariayichihara propensityscoremethodsinhealthtechnologyassessmentprinciplesextendedapplicationsandrecentadvances
AT mariayichihara propensityscoremethodsinhealthtechnologyassessmentprinciplesextendedapplicationsandrecentadvances
AT juliampescarini propensityscoremethodsinhealthtechnologyassessmentprinciplesextendedapplicationsandrecentadvances
AT elizabethwilliamson propensityscoremethodsinhealthtechnologyassessmentprinciplesextendedapplicationsandrecentadvances
AT rosemeirelfiaccone propensityscoremethodsinhealthtechnologyassessmentprinciplesextendedapplicationsandrecentadvances
AT rosemeirelfiaccone propensityscoremethodsinhealthtechnologyassessmentprinciplesextendedapplicationsandrecentadvances
AT rosemeirelfiaccone propensityscoremethodsinhealthtechnologyassessmentprinciplesextendedapplicationsandrecentadvances
AT mauriciolbarreto propensityscoremethodsinhealthtechnologyassessmentprinciplesextendedapplicationsandrecentadvances
AT mauriciolbarreto propensityscoremethodsinhealthtechnologyassessmentprinciplesextendedapplicationsandrecentadvances
AT liamsmeeth propensityscoremethodsinhealthtechnologyassessmentprinciplesextendedapplicationsandrecentadvances
AT liamsmeeth propensityscoremethodsinhealthtechnologyassessmentprinciplesextendedapplicationsandrecentadvances
_version_ 1724938290516197376
spelling doaj-fddb553603cc453f9bc37743dce496012020-11-25T02:05:23ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Pharmacology1663-98122019-09-011010.3389/fphar.2019.00973466792Propensity Score Methods in Health Technology Assessment: Principles, Extended Applications, and Recent AdvancesM Sanni Ali0M Sanni Ali1M Sanni Ali2Daniel Prieto-Alhambra3Daniel Prieto-Alhambra4Luciane Cruz Lopes5Dandara Ramos6Nivea Bispo7Maria Y. Ichihara8Maria Y. Ichihara9Julia M. Pescarini10Elizabeth Williamson11Rosemeire L. Fiaccone12Rosemeire L. Fiaccone13Rosemeire L. Fiaccone14Mauricio L. Barreto15Mauricio L. Barreto16Liam Smeeth17Liam Smeeth18Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United KingdomNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS), Center for Statistics in Medicine (CSM), University of Oxford, Oxford, United KingdomCentre for Data and Knowledge Integration for Health (CIDACS), Instituto Gonçalo Muniz, Fundação Osvaldo Cruz, Salvador, BrazilNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS), Center for Statistics in Medicine (CSM), University of Oxford, Oxford, United KingdomGREMPAL Research Group (Idiap Jordi Gol) and Musculoskeletal Research Unit (Fundació IMIM-Parc Salut Mar), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, SpainUniversity of Sorocaba–UNISO, Sorocaba, São Paulo, BrazilCentre for Data and Knowledge Integration for Health (CIDACS), Instituto Gonçalo Muniz, Fundação Osvaldo Cruz, Salvador, BrazilCentre for Data and Knowledge Integration for Health (CIDACS), Instituto Gonçalo Muniz, Fundação Osvaldo Cruz, Salvador, BrazilCentre for Data and Knowledge Integration for Health (CIDACS), Instituto Gonçalo Muniz, Fundação Osvaldo Cruz, Salvador, BrazilInstitute of Public Health, Federal University of Bahia (UFBA), Salvador, BrazilCentre for Data and Knowledge Integration for Health (CIDACS), Instituto Gonçalo Muniz, Fundação Osvaldo Cruz, Salvador, BrazilFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United KingdomCentre for Data and Knowledge Integration for Health (CIDACS), Instituto Gonçalo Muniz, Fundação Osvaldo Cruz, Salvador, BrazilInstitute of Public Health, Federal University of Bahia (UFBA), Salvador, BrazilDepartment of Statistics, Federal University of Bahia (UFBA), Salvador, BrazilCentre for Data and Knowledge Integration for Health (CIDACS), Instituto Gonçalo Muniz, Fundação Osvaldo Cruz, Salvador, BrazilInstitute of Public Health, Federal University of Bahia (UFBA), Salvador, BrazilFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United KingdomCentre for Data and Knowledge Integration for Health (CIDACS), Instituto Gonçalo Muniz, Fundação Osvaldo Cruz, Salvador, BrazilRandomized clinical trials (RCT) are accepted as the gold-standard approaches to measure effects of intervention or treatment on outcomes. They are also the designs of choice for health technology assessment (HTA). Randomization ensures comparability, in both measured and unmeasured pretreatment characteristics, of individuals assigned to treatment and control or comparator. However, even adequately powered RCTs are not always feasible for several reasons such as cost, time, practical and ethical constraints, and limited generalizability. RCTs rely on data collected on selected, homogeneous population under highly controlled conditions; hence, they provide evidence on efficacy of interventions rather than on effectiveness. Alternatively, observational studies can provide evidence on the relative effectiveness or safety of a health technology compared to one or more alternatives when provided under the setting of routine health care practice. In observational studies, however, treatment assignment is a non-random process based on an individual’s baseline characteristics; hence, treatment groups may not be comparable in their pretreatment characteristics. As a result, direct comparison of outcomes between treatment groups might lead to biased estimate of the treatment effect. Propensity score approaches have been used to achieve balance or comparability of treatment groups in terms of their measured pretreatment covariates thereby controlling for confounding bias in estimating treatment effects. Despite the popularity of propensity scores methods and recent important methodological advances, misunderstandings on their applications and limitations are all too common. In this article, we present a review of the propensity scores methods, extended applications, recent advances, and their strengths and limitations.https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fphar.2019.00973/fullbiasconfoundingeffectivenesshealth technology assessmentpropensity scoresafety