FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2011878503> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2011878503 endingPage "2354" @default.
• W2011878503 startingPage "2354" @default.
• W2011878503 abstract "To the Editor: Propensity scores are being used increasingly to compensate for potential selection bias in nonrandomized controlled studies. Although they are limited in their ability to control for only those variables that have been measured, many clinicians accept their use as the next best thing to randomization, an option that is not always available. The basic idea behind propensity scores is to estimate the likelihood of any given patient receiving the care in question. Usually, some form of logistic regression is used to estimate the likelihood of receiving the care (based on the characteristics of those who do and do not receive the care), and these coefficients are then used to construct an index of propensity. Most often, groups of intervention and control cases are grouped according to their propensity scores into several groups, and comparisons are made within each group. Alternatively, one might use the estimated propensity score for each participant as a control variable, but it is less efficient than simply adjusting for the predictive variables individually in the first place. Researchers in some disciplines worry that propensity models fail to adjust adequately for selection and prefer other statistical approaches such as instrumental variables. This approach is harder to implement in many situations. To make things more complicated, the two approaches can produce different results.1 The study by Casarett et al. in the April 2008 issue of the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society uses propensity scores, but it appears, incorrectly.2 They seem to have modeled the propensity on the basis of the outcomes variable, the Family Assessment of Treatment at the End-of-Life (FATE) measure, rather than client characteristics. If so, this does exactly what any propensity (or selection correction) approach should not do; the goal is to identify factors that affect selection but not outcomes. If clinical research is to employ propensity models, and it seems likely that it will, researchers need to become more familiar with how to use them well. Conflict of Interest: The editor in chief has reviewed the conflict of interest checklist provided by the author and has determined that the author has no financial or any other kind of personal conflicts with this letter. Author is one of the Section Editors for the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. Author Contributions: Author is the sole contributor to this paper. Sponsor's Role: None." @default.
• W2011878503 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2011878503 creator A5053253768 @default.
• W2011878503 date "2008-12-01" @default.
• W2011878503 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2011878503 title "PROPENSITY SCORING" @default.
• W2011878503 cites W1586208633 @default.
• W2011878503 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.02020.x" @default.
• W2011878503 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19093939" @default.
• W2011878503 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W2011878503 type Work @default.
• W2011878503 sameAs 2011878503 @default.
• W2011878503 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2011878503 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2011878503 hasAuthorship W2011878503A5053253768 @default.
• W2011878503 hasBestOaLocation W20118785031 @default.
• W2011878503 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W2011878503 hasConcept C118552586 @default.
• W2011878503 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2011878503 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2011878503 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2011878503 hasConcept C151956035 @default.
• W2011878503 hasConcept C158600405 @default.
• W2011878503 hasConcept C162144332 @default.
• W2011878503 hasConcept C17923572 @default.
• W2011878503 hasConcept C2779978724 @default.
• W2011878503 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2011878503 hasConcept C40423286 @default.
• W2011878503 hasConcept C558461103 @default.
• W2011878503 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2011878503 hasConceptScore W2011878503C105795698 @default.
• W2011878503 hasConceptScore W2011878503C118552586 @default.
• W2011878503 hasConceptScore W2011878503C126322002 @default.
• W2011878503 hasConceptScore W2011878503C141071460 @default.
• W2011878503 hasConceptScore W2011878503C142724271 @default.
• W2011878503 hasConceptScore W2011878503C151956035 @default.
• W2011878503 hasConceptScore W2011878503C158600405 @default.
• W2011878503 hasConceptScore W2011878503C162144332 @default.
• W2011878503 hasConceptScore W2011878503C17923572 @default.
• W2011878503 hasConceptScore W2011878503C2779978724 @default.
• W2011878503 hasConceptScore W2011878503C33923547 @default.
• W2011878503 hasConceptScore W2011878503C40423286 @default.
• W2011878503 hasConceptScore W2011878503C558461103 @default.
• W2011878503 hasConceptScore W2011878503C71924100 @default.
• W2011878503 hasIssue "12" @default.
• W2011878503 hasLocation W20118785031 @default.
• W2011878503 hasLocation W20118785032 @default.
• W2011878503 hasOpenAccess W2011878503 @default.
• W2011878503 hasPrimaryLocation W20118785031 @default.
• W2011878503 hasRelatedWork W1995442954 @default.
• W2011878503 hasRelatedWork W2009558937 @default.
• W2011878503 hasRelatedWork W2065676667 @default.
• W2011878503 hasRelatedWork W2745636525 @default.
• W2011878503 hasRelatedWork W2947954788 @default.
• W2011878503 hasRelatedWork W2951888624 @default.
• W2011878503 hasRelatedWork W2974535310 @default.
• W2011878503 hasRelatedWork W3121449393 @default.
• W2011878503 hasRelatedWork W3201149841 @default.
• W2011878503 hasRelatedWork W4296177128 @default.
• W2011878503 hasVolume "56" @default.
• W2011878503 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2011878503 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2011878503 magId "2011878503" @default.
• W2011878503 workType "article" @default.