2011
DOI: 10.1002/hec.1748
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A matching method for improving covariate balance in cost‐effectiveness analyses

Abstract: In cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) that use randomized controlled trials (RCTs), covariates of prognostic importance may be imbalanced and warrant adjustment. In CEA that use non-randomized studies (NRS), the selection on observables assumption must hold for regression and matching methods to be unbiased. Even in restricted circumstances when this assumption is plausible, a key concern is how to adjust for imbalances in observed confounders. If the propensity score is misspecified, the covariates in the matc… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
85
0
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 99 publications
(87 citation statements)
references
References 84 publications
1
85
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Each of the three "likely" response categories has more treatment participants than control, and each "unlikely" category has more control group participants than treatment. One should consider that it is one thing for viewers to "learn" that a conspiracy scenario might be likely 9 We also used genetic matching as a check on the robustness of our results (Sekhon & Grieve, 2011;Sekhon & Diamond, Forthcoming). Using one-to-one matching, we matched subjects by partisan identification, ideology, race, sex, and political knowledge, and then examined the effect of having watched WTD on our two dependent variables.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Each of the three "likely" response categories has more treatment participants than control, and each "unlikely" category has more control group participants than treatment. One should consider that it is one thing for viewers to "learn" that a conspiracy scenario might be likely 9 We also used genetic matching as a check on the robustness of our results (Sekhon & Grieve, 2011;Sekhon & Diamond, Forthcoming). Using one-to-one matching, we matched subjects by partisan identification, ideology, race, sex, and political knowledge, and then examined the effect of having watched WTD on our two dependent variables.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, if the propensity score is mis-specified, the covariates in the matched sample will be imbalanced, which can lead to a conditional bias. Therefore, a third, more recently developed approach, uses an evolutionary search algorithm to directly maximize covariate balance between exposed individuals and matched controls [75]. It does not depend on knowing or estimating a propensity score.…”
Section: C Secondary Use Of Patient Data For Evaluation Of Health Inmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…130 However, the use of appropriate statistical methods to deal with this type of bias is recommended to estimate particular cost-effectiveness information using observational data (e.g. transition probabilities, costs associated to a health state, utility decrements) that can be synthesised alongside other sources of data in a decision economic model.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…transition probabilities, costs associated to a health state, utility decrements) that can be synthesised alongside other sources of data in a decision economic model. [130][131][132] The aim of this workstream was to conduct a cost-utility analysis of second-line interventions for PPH using a decision-analytic model that synthesised effectiveness data from the national cohort UKOSS study, cost data obtained through interviews and the literature, and health-related quality-of-life information extracted from the literature.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%