Comparing Standard Regression, Propensity Score Matching, and Instrumental Variables Methods for Determining the Influence of Mammography on Stage of Diagnosis

Abstract

In situations where randomized trials are not feasible, analysis of observational data must be used instead. However, when using observational data, there is often selection bias for which we must account in order to adjust for pre-treatment differences between groups in their baseline characteristics. As an example of this, we used the Linked Medicare-Tumor Registry Database created by the National Cancer Institute and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to look at screening with mammography in older women to determine its effectiveness in detecting cancer at an earlier stage. The standard regression method and two methods of adjusting for selection bias are compared. We start with the standard analysis, a logistic regression predicting stage at diagnosis that includes as independent variables a set of covariates to adjust for differences in baseline risk plus an indicator variable for whether the woman used screening. Next, we employ propensity score matching, which evens out the distribution of measured baseline characteristics across groups, and is more robust to model mis-specification than the standard analysis. Lastly, we conduct an instrumental variable analysis, which addresses unmeasured differences between the users and non-users. This article compares these methods and discusses issues of which researchers and analysts should be aware. It is important to look beyond the standard analysis and to consider propensity score matching when there is concern about group differences in measured covariates and instrumental variable analysis when there is concern about differences in unmeasured covariates.