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

In light of newly developed standardization methods, we evaluate, viasimulation study, how propensity score weighting and standardization -basedapproaches compare for obtaining estimates of the marginal odds ratio and themarginal hazard ratio. Specifically, we consider how the two approaches comparein two different scenarios: (1) in a single observational study, and (2) in ananchored indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of randomized controlled trials.We present the material in such a way so that the matching-adjusted indirectcomparison (MAIC) and the (novel) simulated treatment comparison (STC) methodsin the ITC setting may be viewed as analogous to the propensity score weightingand standardization methods in the single observational study setting. Ourresults suggest that current recommendations for conducting ITCs can beimproved and underscore the importance of adjusting for purely prognosticfactors.

Estimating marginal treatment effects from observational studies and  indirect treatment comparisons: When are standardization-based methods  preferable to those based on propensity score weighting?