The recurrence rate did not differ significantly between the two techniques, and the mitotic index and ulceration were identified as independent prognostic factors of progression-free survival.Ĭonclusions: ER might be comparable to SR for the treatment of 2-3 cm gastric GISTs. Statistical differences were also seen in en bloc resection (P<0.001) and adverse events (P=0.027).
![propensity score matching spss version 25 propensity score matching spss version 25](https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1245%2Fs10434-020-09142-w/MediaObjects/10434_2020_9142_Fig1_HTML.png)
However, there were no significant differences in blood loss (P=0.741), resection margin (P=1.000) or time to liquid diet (P=0.055). Results: After matching, the operation time (P=0.005) and postoperative hospital stay (P=0.005) were significantly longer in the SR group than in the ER group. Individual patient information that requires special instructions is also summarized. After propensity score matching, the clinical outcomes were compared. Methods: This study included 67 and 215 patients between 20 who underwent ER and SR, respectively. We aimed to investigate short-term and long-term outcomes between surgical resection (SR) and endoscopic resection (ER). 9Research Center for Experimental Nuclear Medicine, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Shandong University, Jinan, Chinaīackground: The management of 2-5 cm gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) is still debated between surgeons and endoscopists.8Department of Gastroenterology, Shandong Provincial Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, China.7Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Peking University People’s Hospital, Beijing, China.6Department of Digestive Tumor Translational Medicine, Engineering Laboratory of Shandong Province, Shandong Provincial Hospital, Jinan, China.5Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, China.4Medical Science and Technology Innovation Center, Shandong First Medical University & Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China.3Department of Clinical Medicine, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, China.2Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, China.1Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Shandong Provincial Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, China.If you are interest I can see if they will take it on the SSC.Hao Wu 1†‡, Han Li 2‡, Qinfeng Xu 3, Liang Shang 1,4,5,6, Ronghua Zhang 1,5, Chen Li 7, Mengdi Fu 3, Wandi Xu 3, Jianfeng Chen 3, Jin Liu 8,9* and Leping Li 1,4,5,6*† What at version of Stata are you using? This is apparently core functionality in Stata 14 but I have a package for doing ps reweighting in Stata 13. There is a formula by Ambie and Imbens (I think) but my recollection is ut is asymptotic. Much of the rest use bootstrapping which is not on sound theoretical footing with discontinuous estimators like matching. Most of the literature completely ignores the fact that the control group is itself the result of an estimation and hence is a source of variation.
![propensity score matching spss version 25 propensity score matching spss version 25](https://www.mdpi.com/jcm/jcm-09-04027/article_deploy/html/images/jcm-09-04027-g001.png)
#PROPENSITY SCORE MATCHING SPSS VERSION 25 HOW TO#
There are two issues to be aware of when matching: the issue of common support (observations in your treatment group that do not have reasonable matches in the pseudo-control population), and the issue of how to compute the standard error of the difference of means. It does not discard information in your pseudo-control population unnecessarily and behaves much better with regard to bootstrapping. I use propensity score reweighting instead of matching.
#PROPENSITY SCORE MATCHING SPSS VERSION 25 FULL#
If you are interested in using matching then full matching is generally better than propensity score matching.