Skip to main content
. 2012 Dec 6;48(4):1487–1507. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12020

Table 3.

Treatment Effect Estimates by Scenario Using (1) Regression and (2) Differences between the Cure Rate for the Treated and Untreated Patients from Propensity Score Algorithms

I II III IV V

Matching Tolerance Based on Propensity Score

Scenario Truth No Control* Regression Estimate Controlling for XM Inverse Probability Weighting Average across Bins§ .1 .01 .001
1 .200 .263 .254 .255 .255 .263 .258 .257
2 .200 .273 .257 .257 .257 .268 .261 .260
3 .200 .271 .260 .286 .265 .265 .262 .261
4 .200 .275 .254 .255 .256 .261 .254 .253
5 .200 .282 .232 .256 .239 .240 .234 .233
6 .200 .304 .227 .291 .239 .242 .231 .233
7 .200 .318 .203 .299 .223 .220 .212 .210
8 .200 .338 .194 .316 .220 .213 .222 .225
*

Difference in cure rates between treated and untreated patients without control for XM.

Linear multiple regression estimate of the effect of T on cure controlling for XM.

Weighted difference in cure rates between treated and untreated patients with weights based on the propensity score.

§

Average of the difference in cure rates between treated and untreated patients across the five propensity score bins.

Difference in cure rates between propensity score-matched treated and untreated patients.