[Indication bias in retrospective observational studies: applications of propensity scores].

Authors

Mariana Vaena, María Florencia Grande Ratti, Iván Huespe

Published in

Medicina. Volume 86. Issue 4. Pages 1011-1018.

Abstract

Analytical observational studies are useful for evaluating the effects of interventions when randomized controlled trials are not feasible. However, the absence of randomization introduces confounding by indication, as external factors known as confounders may be associated both with the probability of receiving a treatment and with the occurrence of an outcome (without being part of the causal pathway), potentially distorting observed results. Among the available strategies to adjust for potential confounders and emulate randomization, the Propensity Score (PS) is one of the most widely used methods. It is defined as the probability of receiving an intervention given a specific set of covariates, which should be selected based on causal considerations and followed by rigorous assessment of covariate balance between groups using standardized differences and graphical tools.The PS can be implemented through several approaches, including direct adjustment, stratification, matching, or inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Each technique yields different types of estimands (conditional or marginal) depending on the analytic objective. Although these methods do not guarantee causal inference on their own, they represent robust approaches for reducing confounding in observational studies, underscoring the importance of their proper understanding and application.

PMID:
42604511
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 17 Aug 2026.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.