Explanatory analyses of randomized studies

Biometrics

Volumn 52, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 1450-1456

  Tritchler, David ^a,b  

^a PRINCESS MARGARET HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Causality; Confounding; Directed graph; Encouragement design; Explanatory trial; Intervention study; Noncompliance; Pragmatic trial

Indexed keywords

DISEASES;

BREAST CANCER; BREAST CANCER RISK; CANCER PREVENTION; CAUSALITY; CONFOUNDING; ENCOURAGEMENT DESIGN; EXPLANATORY TRIAL; INTERVENTION STUDIES; NONCOMPLIANCE; PRAGMATIC TRIAL;

DIRECTED GRAPHS;

ARTICLE; BIOMETRY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER PREVENTION; CANCER RISK; FAT INTAKE; RANDOMIZATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 0030480307     PISSN: 0006341X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/2532858     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Angrist, J., Imbens, G., and Rubin, D. (1996). Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables (with, discussion). Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 444-472.
2. Blackwelder, W. C. (1982). Proving the null hypothesis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 3, 345-353.
3. Dawid, A. P. (1979). Conditional independence in statistical theory (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 41, 1-31.
4. Edwards, D. (1995). Introduction to Graphical Modelling, New York: Springer-Verlag.
5. Efron, B. and Feldman, D. (1991). Compliance as an explanatory variable in clinical trials (with discussion). Journal of the American Statistical Association 86, 9-26.
6. Holland, P. W. (1988). Causal inference, path analysis, and recursive structural equations models. In Sociological Methodology, Volume 18, C. C. Clogg (ed), 449-484. Washington, D.C.: American Sociological Association.
7. Oakes, A., Moss, A. J., Fleiss, J. L., Bigger, J. T., Jr., Therneau, T., Eberly, S. W., McDermott, M. P., Manatunga, A., Carleen, E., Benhorin, J., and The Multicenter Diltiazem Post-Infarction Trial Research Group. (1993). Use of compliance measures in an analysis of the effect of diltiazem on mortality and reinfarction after myocardial infarction. Journal of the American Statistical Association 88, 44-49.
8. Pearl, J. (1995a). Causal diagrams for experimental research (with discussion). Biometrika 82, 669-710.
9. Pearl, J. (1995b). Causal inference from indirect experiments. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 7, 561-582.
10. Pearl, J. and Verma, T. S. (1991). A theory of inferred causation. In Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Second International Conference, J. A. Allen, R. Fikes, and E. Sandwall (eds), 441-452. San Mateo, California: Morgan Kaufmann.
11. Powers, D. E. and Swinton, S. S. (1984). Effects of self-study for coachable test item types. Journal of Educational Measurement 76, 266-278.
12. Prentice, R. L. (1989). Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: Definition and operational criteria. Statistics in Medicine 8, 431-440.
13. Robbins, J., Rotnitzky, A., and Zhao, L. P. (1995). Analysis of semiparametric regression models for repeated outcomes in the presence of missing data. Journal of the Americal Statistical Association 90, 106-121.
14. Schwartz, D., Flamant, R., and Lellouch, J. (1980). Clinical Trials, Chapter 9. London: Academic Press.
15. Whittaker, J. (1990). Graphical Models in Applied Multivariate Statistics. New York: Wiley.