In light of newly developed standardization methods, we evaluate, via simulation study, how propensity score weighting and standardization -based approaches compare for obtaining estimates of the marginal odds ratio and the marginal hazard ratio. Specifically, we consider how the two approaches compare in two different scenarios: (1) in a single observational study, and (2) in an anchored indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of randomized controlled trials. We present the material in such a way so that the matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) and the (novel) simulated treatment comparison (STC) methods in the ITC setting may be viewed as analogous to the propensity score weighting and standardization methods in the single observational study setting. Our results suggest that current recommendations for conducting ITCs can be improved and underscore the importance of adjusting for purely prognostic factors.

翻译：鉴于新开发的标准化方法，本文通过模拟研究评估了倾向性评分加权与标准化方法在估计边际优势比和边际风险比方面的比较。具体而言，我们考量了两种方法在两种不同场景下的表现：（1）单一观察性研究；（2）随机对照试验的锚定间接治疗比较（ITC）。我们通过呈现材料的方式，使得ITC场景中的匹配调整间接比较（MAIC）和（新颖的）模拟治疗比较（STC）方法可被视为与单一观察性研究场景中的倾向性评分加权和标准化方法相类比。研究结果表明，当前关于进行ITC的建议可以得到改进，并强调了调整纯预后因素的重要性。