1 1 0 3 P. C. AUSTIN References 1. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70:41--55. 2. Austin PC. The relative ability of different propensity-score methods to balance measured covariates between treated and untreated subjects in observational studies. Medical Decision Making 2009; 29:661--677. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X09341755. 3. Schafer JL, Kang J. Average causal effects from nonrandomized studies: a practical guide and simulated example. Psychological Methods 2008; 13:279--313. 4. Austin PC. Propensity-score matching in the cardiovascular surgery literature from 2004 to 2006: a systematic review and suggestions for improvement. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2007; 134:1128--1135. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2007.07.021 5. Austin PC. A critical appraisal of propensity score matching in the medical literature from 1996 to 2003. Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27:2037--2049. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3150. 6. Austin PC. A report card on propensity-score matching in the cardiology literature from 2004 to 2006: results of a systematic review. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes 2008; 1:62--67. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.108.790634. 7. Shah BR, Laupacis A, Hux JE, Austin PC. Propensity score methods give similar results to traditional regression modeling in observational studies: a systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2005; 58:550--559. 8. Austin PC, Manca A, Zwarenstein M, Juurlink DN, Stanbrook MB. A substantial and confusing variation exists in handling of baseline covariates in randomized controlled trials: a review of trials published in leading medical journals. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2010; 63:142--153. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.002. 9. Austin PC. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating difference in proportions (risk differences or absolute risk reductions) in observational studies. Statistics in Medicine 2010; 29:2137--2148. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3854. 10. Austin PC. Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2010; DOI: 10.1002/pst.433. 11. Imbens GW. Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: a review. The Review of Economics and Statistics 2004; 86:4--29. 12. Austin PC. A data-generation process for data with speciﬁed risk differences or numbers needed to treat. Communications in Statistics – Simulation and Computation 2010; 39:563--577. DOI: 10.1080/03610910903528301. 13. Agresti A. An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis. Wiley: New York, NY, 1996. 14. Agresti A, Min Y. Effects and non-effects of paired identical observations in comparing proportions with binary matched-pairs data. Statistics in Medicine 2004; 23:65--75. 15. Austin PC. Type I error rates, coverage of conﬁdence intervals, and variance estimation in propensity-score matched analyses. The International Journal of Biostatistics: 2009; 5:Article 13. DOI: 10.2202/1557-4679.1146. 16. Austin PC, Grootendorst P, Normand SLT, Anderson GM. Conditioning on the propensity score can result in biased estimation of common measures of treatment effect: a Monte Carlo study. Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26:754--768. DOI: 10.1002/sim.2618. 17. Austin PC. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios. Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26:3078--3094. DOI: 10.1002/sim.2781. 18. Austin PC. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating relative risks. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2008; 61:537--545. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.07.011. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Statist. Med. 2011, 30 1292--1301