Using the Standardized Difference to Compare the Prevalence of a Binary Variable Between Two Groups in Observational Research
Top Cited Papers
- 9 April 2009
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Informa UK Limited in Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation
- Vol. 38 (6), 1228-1234
- https://doi.org/10.1080/03610910902859574
Abstract
Researchers are increasingly using the standardized difference to compare the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in observational studies. Standardized differences were initially developed in the context of comparing the mean of continuous variables between two groups. However, in medical research, many baseline covariates are dichotomous. In this article, we explore the utility and interpretation of the standardized difference for comparing the prevalence of dichotomous variables between two groups. We examined the relationship between the standardized difference, and the maximal difference in the prevalence of the binary variable between two groups, the relative risk relating the prevalence of the binary variable in one group compared to the prevalence in the other group, and the phi coefficient for measuring correlation between the treatment group and the binary variable. We found that a standardized difference of 10% (or 0.1) is equivalent to having a phi coefficient of 0.05 (indicating negligible correlation) for the correlation between treatment group and the binary variable.Keywords
This publication has 10 references indexed in Scilit:
- Primer on Statistical Interpretation or Methods Report Card on Propensity-Score Matching in the Cardiology Literature From 2004 to 2006Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 2008
- A critical appraisal of propensity‐score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003Statistics in Medicine, 2007
- Propensity-score matching in the cardiovascular surgery literature from 2004 to 2006: A systematic review and suggestions for improvementThe Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 2007
- Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal InferencePolitical Analysis, 2007
- A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo studyStatistics in Medicine, 2006
- A comparison of propensity score methods: a case‐study estimating the effectiveness of post‐AMI statin useStatistics in Medicine, 2005
- Statistical Methods for Rates and ProportionsWiley Series in Probability and Statistics, 2003
- Validating recommendations for coronary angiography following acute myocardial infarction in the elderlyJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2001
- Standard Distance in Univariate and Multivariate AnalysisThe American Statistician, 1986
- The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effectsBiometrika, 1983