手法を比較

	マッチド生存分析	傾向スコアマッチング
分野	疫学	研究統計
系統	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
提唱年	1983 (propensity-score matching); applied to survival outcomes throughout 1990s–2000s	1983
提唱者	Building on Kaplan & Meier (1958) and Cox (1972); matching framework formalised in observational study design literature (Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1983)	Paul Rosenbaum and Donald Rubin
種類	Observational study analytic method	Method
原典	Austin, P. C. (2014). Graphical assessments of the balance of propensity score matched samples: A SAS macro. Journal of Statistical Software, 58(7), 1-29. Also see Austin, P. C. (2017). A tutorial on multilevel survival analysis: Methods, models and applications. International Statistical Review, 85(2), 185-203.	Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55.
別名	matched time-to-event analysis, propensity-matched survival analysis, matched Kaplan-Meier analysis, paired survival analysis	PSM, propensity score weighting, covariate balance
関連	4	3
概要	Matched survival analysis combines a matching design — typically propensity score matching or exact matching on key covariates — with time-to-event methods such as Kaplan-Meier estimation and the Cox proportional hazards model. By pairing treated and control subjects who are similar on observed confounders before estimating survival curves or hazard ratios, the approach reduces confounding bias in non-randomised studies and produces more credible comparisons of event-free survival between exposure groups.	Propensity score matching (PSM) is a method for reducing confounding bias in observational studies by balancing baseline characteristics between treatment groups, simulating randomization. Developed by Rosenbaum and Rubin (1983), it estimates the probability of receiving treatment given observed covariates, then matches or weights treated and control individuals with similar treatment probabilities. Widely used in medicine, epidemiology, and policy evaluation when randomized trials are infeasible or unethical, enabling estimation of treatment effects while controlling for selection bias.