Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

In their recent Health Services Research article titled "Squeezing the Balloon: Propensity Scores and Unmeasured Covariate Balance," Brooks and Ohsfeldt (2013) addressed an important topic on the balancing property of the propensity score (PS) with respect to unmeasured covariates. They concluded that PS methods that balance measured covariates between treated and untreated subjects exacerbate imbalance in unmeasured covariates that are unrelated to measured covariates. Furthermore, they emphasized that for PS algorithms, an imbalance on unmeasured covariates between treatment and untreated subjects is a necessary condition to achieve balance on measured covariates between the groups. We argue that these conclusions are the results of their assumptions on the mechanism of treatment allocation. In addition, we discuss the underlying assumptions of PS methods, their advantages compared with multivariate regression methods, as well as the interpretation of the effect estimates from PS methods.

Original publication




Journal article


Health services research

Publication Date





1074 - 1082


Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.


Humans, Propensity Score