Timeline for How does propensity score matching that uses only a small proportion of eligible patients affect generalizability?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 26, 2020 at 21:12 | vote | accept | Diana Petitti | ||
| Jul 24, 2020 at 15:19 | comment | added | Diana Petitti | The paper is extraordinarily vague about exactly how they did the matching. | |
| Jul 23, 2020 at 1:20 | answer | added | Noah | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jul 22, 2020 at 23:30 | history | edited | dimitriy |
edited tags
|
|
| Jul 22, 2020 at 23:06 | comment | added | dimitriy | Could you elaborate a bit on the matching procedure? It sounds like they are doing nearest neighbor PSM, either with or without replacement. There is a bit about the bias-variance trade-offs from using only 1 match and from sampling type here. You could also say the results generalize to the common support of the PS. If you have people in the treatment group with PS close to one, and there is no folks like that in the control group (or they are very scare), you exclude them from the comparison and TE calculation. | |
| Jul 22, 2020 at 21:27 | review | First posts | |||
| Jul 22, 2020 at 21:28 | |||||
| Jul 22, 2020 at 21:24 | history | asked | Diana Petitti | CC BY-SA 4.0 |