Annals
Established in 1927 by the American College of Physicians
:
Advanced search
box Article
 arrow  Table of Contents                
space
 arrow  Full Text of this article Free
space
 arrow  Figures/Tables List
space
box Services
 arrow  Send comment/rapid response letter
space
 arrow  Notify a friend about this article
space
 arrow  Alert me when this article is cited
space
 arrow  Add to Personal Archive
space
 arrow  Download to Citation Manager
space
 arrow  ACP Search                        
space
 arrow  Get Permissions
space
box Google Scholar
 arrow  Search for Related Content
space
box PubMed
Articles in PubMed by Author:
  arrow  Rubin, D. B.
space
 arrow  Related Articles in PubMed
space
 arrow  PubMed Citation
space
 arrow  PubMed
space

STATISTICAL METHODS

Estimating Causal Effects from Large Data Sets Using Propensity Scores

right arrow Donald B. Rubin, PhD

15 October 1997 | Volume 127 Issue 8 Part 2 | Pages 757-763

The aim of many analyses of large databases is to draw causal inferences about the effects of actions, treatments, or interventions. Examples include the effects of various options available to a physician for treating a particular patient, the relative efficacies of various health care providers, and the consequences of implementing a new national health care policy. A complication of using large databases to achieve such aims is that their data are almost always observational rather than experimental. That is, the data in most large data sets are not based on the results of carefully conducted randomized clinical trials, but rather represent data collected through the observation of systems as they operate in normal practice without any interventions implemented by randomized assignment rules. Such data are relatively inexpensive to obtain, however, and often do represent the spectrum of medical practice better than the settings of randomized experiments. Consequently, it is sensible to try to estimate the effects of treatments from such large data sets, even if only to help design a new randomized experiment or shed light on the generalizability of results from existing randomized experiments. However, standard methods of analysis using available statistical software (such as linear or logistic regression) can be deceptive for these objectives because they provide no warnings about their propriety. Propensity score methods are more reliable tools for addressing such objectives because the assumptions needed to make their answers appropriate are more assessable and transparent to the investigator.

Author and Article Information
space

From Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Note: This article is one of a series of articles comprising an Annals of Internal Medicine supplement entitled "Measuring Quality, Outcomes, and Cost of Care Using Large Databases: The Sixth Regenstrief Conference." To see a complete list of the articles included in this supplement, please view its Table of Contents.
Grant Support: In part by a grant from the National Science Foundation (SES-9207456).
Acknowledgments: The author thanks Jennifer Hill and Frederick Mosteller for helpful editorial comments on an earlier draft of this article.
Requests for Reprints: Donald B. Rubin, PhD, Harvard University, Department of Statistics, Science Center, 6th Floor, 1 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
CirculationHome page
A. W. Chan, D. L. Bhatt, D. P. Chew, M. J. Quinn, D. J. Moliterno, E. J. Topol, and S. G. Ellis
Early and Sustained Survival Benefit Associated With Statin Therapy at the Time of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Circulation, February 12, 2002; 105(6): 691 - 696.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




 Home | Current Issue | Past Issues | In the Clinic | ACP Journal Club | CME | Collections | Audio/Video | Mobile | Subscribe | Tools | Help | ACP Online 

Copyright © 1997 by the American College of Physicians.