Table 3. Characteristics and quality of PSM reporting (n = 92).
| Methodology Characteristic | (N = 92) |
|---|---|
| Covariates Reported | |
| Yes (%) | 89 (96.7) |
| Justification Given (%) | 33 (37.1) |
| No Justification Given (%) | 56 (62.9) |
| No (%) | 3 (3.3) |
| Summary Statistics Provided for Pre / Post-Matched Populations (%) | 33 (35.9) |
| Balance Technique | |
| Standardized Differences (%) | 21 (22.8) |
| <10% (%) | 15 (71.4) |
| <20% (%) | 1 (4.7) |
| < 25% (%) | 1 (4.7) |
| Not Reported (%) | 4 (19.0) |
| P Values (%) | 39 (42.4) |
| Graphically (%) | 2 (2.2) |
| Not Reported (%) | 30 (32.6) |
| Regression Model Provided (%) | 57 (62.0) |
| Sensitivity Analysis Provided (%) | 4 (4.4) |
| Matched Sample Size Included (%) | 75 (81.5) |
| Type of Matching Algorithm Used * | |
| Greedy NN no caliper (%) | 14 (15.2) |
| Greedy NN within caliper (%) | 36 (39.1) |
| Reported how it was generated (%) | 20 (55.5) |
| Failed to Report how it was generated (%) | 16 (44.4) |
| Optimal matching (%) | 1 (1.1) |
| Reported how it was generated (%) | 1 (100.0) |
| Failed to Report how it was generated (%) | 0 (0.0) |
| Digit (%) | 1 (1.1) |
| Not Reported (%) | 40 (43.5) |
| Use of Statistical Methods that account for Matched Data? * | |
| Yes (%) | 14 (15.2) |
| No (%) | 63 (68.5) |
| Not Reported (%) | 15 (16.3) |
| Ratio Used * | |
| 1:1 (%) | 67 (72.8) |
| 1:2 (%) | 6 (6.5) |
| 1:3 (%) | 4 (4.3) |
| Other (%) | 11 (12.0) |
| Not Reported (%) | 4 (4.3) |
| With or Without Replacement? * | |
| Without (%) | 21 (22.8) |
| With (%) | 1 (1.1) |
| Not Reported (%) | 70 (76.0) |
| Reproducibility Score | |
| 0/4 (%) | 1 (1.1) |
| 1/4 (%) | 11 (12.0) |
| 2/4 (%) | 29 (31.5) |
| 3/4 (%) | 35 (38.0) |
| 4/4 (%) | 16 (17.4) |
*Criteria used to determine Reproducibility Score