首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>other >Propensity Score Methods in Health Technology Assessment: Principles Extended Applications and Recent Advances
【2h】

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

机译:卫生技术评估中的倾向评分方法:原理扩展应用和最新进展

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

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.
机译:随机临床试验(RCT)被接受为衡量干预或治疗对预后影响的金标准方法。它们也是卫生技术评估(HTA)的首选设计。随机化可确保分配给治疗和对照或比较者的个体在测量和未测量的预处理特征方面具有可比性。但是,由于成本,时间,实践和道德约束以及通用性有限等多种原因,即使是功能强大的RCT也不总是可行的。随机对照试验依靠在严格控制的条件下从选定的同质种群中收集的数据;因此,它们提供了干预效果的证据,而不是有效性的证据。替代地,当在常规卫生保健实践的背景下提供时,与一项或多项替代方案相比,观察性研究可以提供有关卫生技术相对有效性或安全性的证据。但是,在观察性研究中,治疗分配是基于个人基线特征的非随机过程;因此,治疗组的预处理特征可能不具有可比性。结果,治疗组之间结果的直接比较可能导致治疗效果的估计偏差。倾向得分方法已用于根据测量的治疗前协变量实现治疗组的平衡或可比性,从而控制估计治疗效果时的混杂偏差。尽管倾向得分方法和最近的重要方法学方法很受欢迎,但对它们的应用和局限性的误解仍然很普遍。在本文中,我们将对倾向得分方法,扩展的应用程序,最新进展以及它们的优缺点进行综述。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号