SAGE Journals Online
Advertisement
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Advertisement

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Statistical Methods in Medical Research
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Park, G. S.
Right arrow Articles by Paulus, H. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Park, G. S.
Right arrow Articles by Paulus, H. E.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Classifying radiographic progression status in early rheumatoid arthritis patients using propensity scores to adjust for baseline differences

Grace S. Park

Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, and Division of Rheumatology, University of California, Losa Angeles, CA, USA, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA, gspark{at}mednet.ucla.edu

Weng Kee Wong

Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

MyungShin Oh

Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, and Division of Rheumatology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Dinesh Khanna

Division of Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Cincinnati, OH, USA

Richard H. Gold

Department of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

John T. Sharp

Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

Harold E. Paulus

Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Various methods are used to measure radiographic joint damage in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but determining proportions of responsive patients is difficult. A key problem in observational studies when assessing damage outcomes is incorporating time to treatment initialization and adjusting for observed baseline differences. We examined five different definitions to select an appropriate index to classify radiographic damage in RA patients as progressive or nonprogressive. In addition, we compared different times from symptom onset to treatment and their effects on patient radiographic categorization. Propensity scores to adjust for baseline differences, including time since symptom onset, were used to match those treated early with those treated later using the stratification, radius, nearest neighbor and kernel methods. The mean effect of treatment on the treated was computed for each matching method. Observational data were analyzed for 185 early RA patients from the Western Consortium study followed six to sixty months (mean thirty-one months). For the selected index, 75 patients were categorized as nonprogressors; they had significantly lower disease activity, more clinical improvement and were treated earlier than the progressors. Of those treated within three months of symptom onset, 57% were classified as radiographically progressive versus 35% of those treated later (P = 0.0058). However, after propensity score adjustment for baseline differences, we noticed nonsignificant (P > 0.05) nonprogression in patients given earlier treatment. We conclude that propensity score analysis reduced but did not remove all bias.

Statistical Methods in Medical Research, Vol. 16, No. 1, 13-29 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0962280207070623


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?




Advertisement