2017
DOI: 10.4088/jcp.17f11446
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Propensity Score Matching in Nonrandomized Studies: A Concept Simply Explained Using Antidepressant Treatment During Pregnancy as an Example

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
24
0
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

4
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
24
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Propensity score matching is another important statistical approach that may be considered. 19 Investigators need to be resourceful in their choice of control analyses. If depression is a confound, then the association between antidepressants and cataract should be stronger in moderate to severe depression than in mild to moderate depression.…”
Section: Antidepressants and Cataract: Suggestions For Future Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Propensity score matching is another important statistical approach that may be considered. 19 Investigators need to be resourceful in their choice of control analyses. If depression is a confound, then the association between antidepressants and cataract should be stronger in moderate to severe depression than in mild to moderate depression.…”
Section: Antidepressants and Cataract: Suggestions For Future Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The problem of confounding in observational studies in pregnancy has been discussed in detail in earlier articles in this column and elsewhere [17][18][19] ; whereas the use of preconception exposure controls, sibling controls, and paternal exposure controls may offer better insights, these research designs are also not infallible. [20][21][22] The bottom line is that no matter how ingenious the research design is and no matter how careful the adjustment for confounding is, observational studies cannot establish that an exposure causes an outcome.…”
Section: Critical Appraisal: General Commentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In effect, observational studies can identify significant associations but can never ascribe causality to those associations. 8,9 As an example, if there was systematic bias in prescribing psychostimulants to more severely ill patients and atomoxetine to less severely ill patients, and if the ADHD behaviors that predisposed to adverse gestational outcomes were not adequately measured and adjusted for in the analyses, then no amount of statistical manipulation would satisfactorily adjust for confounding by indication. This could well be a reason why atomoxetine was not associated with adverse gestational outcomes, although psychostimulants were.…”
Section: Critical Commentsmentioning
confidence: 99%