English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This review examines the conduct and reporting of observational studies using propensity score-based methods to compare coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or medical therapy for patients with coronary artery disease. A systematic selection process identified 48 studies: 20 addressing CABG versus PCI; 21 addressing bare-metal stents versus drug-eluting stents; 5 addressing CABG versus medical therapy; 1 addressing PCI versus medical therapy; and 1 addressing drug-eluting stents versus balloon angioplasty. Of 32 studies reporting information on variable selection, 7 relied exclusively on statistical criteria for the association of covariates with treatment, and 5 used such criteria to determine whether product or nonlinear terms should be included in the propensity score model. Twenty-five (52%) studies reported assessing covariate balance using the estimated propensity score, but only 1 described modifications to the propensity score model based on this assessment. The over 400 variables used in the 48 propensity score models were classified into 12 categories and 60 subcategories; only 17 subcategories were represented in at least half of the propensity score models. Overall, reporting of propensity score-based methods in observational studies comparing CABG, PCI, and medical therapy was incomplete; when adequately described, the methods used were often inconsistent with current methodological standards.

Propensity Score–Based Methods in Comparative Effectiveness Research on Coronary Artery Disease