  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.
