Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding01:25

Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding

Confounding is a critical issue in epidemiological studies, often leading to misleading conclusions about associations between exposures and outcomes. It occurs when the relationship between the exposure and the outcome is mixed with the effects of other factors that influence the outcome. Given that, addressing confounding is of high importance for drawing accurate inferences in research.
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches01:23

Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches

Biopharmaceutical studies constitute a vital field aiming to enhance drug delivery methods and refine therapeutic approaches, drawing upon diverse interdisciplinary knowledge. In research methodologies, the choice between controlled and non-controlled studies significantly influences the study's reliability and accuracy.
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Completely Randomized and Randomized Block Designs01:20

Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Completely Randomized and Randomized Block Designs

Bioequivalence experimental study designs are crucial methodologies used in evaluating and comparing the bioavailability of different drug products. These designs are categorized into various types: completely randomized, randomized block, repeated measures, cross and carry-over, and Latin square designs.Completely randomized designs involve randomly allocating treatments to all subjects participating in the experiment. This allocation is achieved by assigning unique random numbers to subjects...
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs01:15

Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs

Bioequivalence experimental study designs play a pivotal role in testing the effectiveness of various treatments. Key among these are the repeated measures, cross-over, carry-over, and Latin square designs. In the repeated measures design, each subject receives all treatments, allowing for temporal comparisons. This type of design is useful in reducing variability but requires careful planning to avoid bias.The cross-over design, an economical method, involves sequential administration of...
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups01:20

Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups

Survival analysis is a cornerstone of medical research, used to evaluate the time until an event of interest occurs, such as death, disease recurrence, or recovery. Unlike standard statistical methods, survival analysis is particularly adept at handling censored data—instances where the event has not occurred for some participants by the end of the study or remains unobserved. To address these unique challenges, specialized techniques like the Kaplan-Meier estimator, log-rank test, and Cox...
Crossover Experiments01:16

Crossover Experiments

Crossover experiments, also called the repeated-measurements design, is a study design in which all experimental units are exposed to all treatments in different periods. Crossover experiments are generally used in psychology, the pharmaceutical industry, agriculture, and medicine.
Crossover designs are performed even with smaller sample sizes since the samples can act as their controls. These are better than simple randomized trials since patients are exposed to all the treatments.

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of permissive hypotension in critically ill patients aged 65 years or over with vasodilatory hypotension: Protocol for the 65 randomised clinical trial.

Journal of the Intensive Care Society·2021
Same author

Reduced exposure to vasopressors through permissive hypotension to reduce mortality in critically ill people aged 65 and over: the 65 RCT.

Health technology assessment (Winchester, England)·2021
Same author

Evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of permissive hypotension in critically ill patients aged 65 years or over with vasodilatory hypotension: Statistical and health economic analysis plan for the 65 trial in article.

Journal of the Intensive Care Society·2020
Same author

A framework for extending trial design to facilitate missing data sensitivity analyses.

BMC medical research methodology·2020
Same author

Effect of Reduced Exposure to Vasopressors on 90-Day Mortality in Older Critically Ill Patients With Vasodilatory Hypotension: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

JAMA·2020
Same author

Effect of a Nurse-Led Preventive Psychological Intervention on Symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Among Critically Ill Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

JAMA·2019

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 1, 2026

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (Propensity Score) using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
06:55

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (Propensity Score) using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index

Published on: January 8, 2020

A matching method for improving covariate balance in cost-effectiveness analyses.

Jasjeet Singh Sekhon1, Richard D Grieve

  • 1Department of Political Science, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720–1950, USA. sekhon@berkeley.edu

Health Economics
|June 3, 2011
PubMed
Summary

Genetic Matching improves covariate balance in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRS). This method enhances covariate balance, reducing bias and improving estimates, particularly in NRS.

More Related Videos

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model
05:37

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

Published on: September 16, 2022

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 1, 2026

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (Propensity Score) using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
06:55

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (Propensity Score) using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index

Published on: January 8, 2020

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model
05:37

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

Published on: September 16, 2022

Area of Science:

  • Health Economics
  • Biostatistics
  • Clinical Research Methodology

Background:

  • Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) often face covariate imbalance in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRS).
  • Propensity score matching (PSM) methods can be sensitive to misspecification, leading to residual covariate imbalance and conditional bias.
  • Adjusting for observed confounders is crucial for unbiased estimation in both RCTs and NRS.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate Genetic Matching (GM) as a method to improve covariate balance in CEA.
  • To compare the performance of GM against PSM in addressing covariate imbalance.
  • To assess the impact of GM on bias and cost-effectiveness estimates in simulated and real-world data.

Main Methods:

  • Genetic Matching, a search algorithm designed to directly maximize covariate balance.
  • Monte Carlo simulations to compare GM and PSM under various conditions.
  • Case studies involving CEA of pulmonary artery catheterization using both RCT and NRS data.

Main Results:

  • Genetic Matching demonstrated reduced conditional bias and root mean squared error compared to PSM in simulations.
  • GM achieved superior covariate balance compared to unadjusted analyses in RCT data.
  • In NRS, GM improved covariate balance over PSM and yielded substantively different incremental cost-effectiveness estimates.

Conclusions:

  • Genetic Matching is effective in improving measured covariate balance in CEA utilizing both RCTs and NRS.
  • While GM enhances balance, it does not eliminate the need for the selection on observables assumption in NRS to reduce bias.
  • GM offers a valuable tool for improving the reliability of cost-effectiveness estimates, especially when dealing with observational data.