Intention to treat, per protocol, as treated and instrumental variable estimators given non-compliance and effect heterogeneity

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 28, Issue 21, 2009, Pages 2639-2652

  McNamee, Roseanne ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bias; Efficacy; Instrumental variable; Per protocol analysis; RCT

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AS TREATED ANALYSIS; AVERAGE TREATMENT EFFECT; COMPLIER AVERAGE TREATMENT EFFECT; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; INSTRUMENTAL VARIABLE ANALYSIS; INTENTION TO TREAT ESTIMATOR; NULL HYPOTHESIS; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PER PROTOCOL ANALYSIS; PREDICTOR VARIABLE; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICAL PARAMETERS; SYSTEMATIC ERROR; THERAPY EFFECT;

ALGORITHMS; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); HUMANS; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 70449346507     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.3636     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Sheiner LB, Rubin DB. Intention to treat and the goals of clinical trials. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 1995; 57:6-15.
2. Special Issue: Analysing non-compliance in clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine 1998; 17(3):247-393.
3. White I. Uses and limitations of randomisation-based efficacy estimators. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 2005; 14:327-347. (Pubitemid 41300810)
4. Angrist J, Imbens G, Rubin D. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1996; 91:444-455. (Pubitemid 126412813)
5. Robins J, Greenland S. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables: comment. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1996; 91:456-458.
6. Angrist J, Imbens G, Rubin D. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables: rejoinder. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1996; 91:468-472. (Pubitemid 126092298)
7. Bang H, Davis C. On estimating treatment effects under non-compliance in clinical trials: are Intention to Treat or instrumental variable analyses perfect solutions? Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26:954-964. (Pubitemid 46291124)
8. Lui KJ. Comments on 'On estimating treatment effects under non-compliance in clinical trials: are Intention to Treat or instrumental variable analyses perfect solutions?'. Statistics in Medicine 2009; 28:531-534.
9. Manski C. Nonparametric bounds on treatment effects. American Economic Reviews, Papers and Proceedings 1990; 80:319-323.
10. Balke A, Pearl J. Bounds on treatment effects from studies with imperfect compliance. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1997; 92:1171-1176. (Pubitemid 127119877)
11. Robins J. The analysis of randomized and non-randomised AIDS treatment trials using a new approach to causal inference in longitudinal studies. In Health Services Research Methodology: A Focus on AIDS, Sechrest L, Freeman H, Mulley A (eds). US Public Health Service: Washington, DC, 1989; 113-159.
12. Harris K, Remler D. Who is the marginal patient? Understanding instrumental variables estimates of treatment effects. Health Services Research 1998; 33(5):1337-1360. (Pubitemid 29006391)
13. Lachin J. Statistical considerations in the intention-to-treat principle. Controlled Clinical Trials 2000; 21:167-189.
14. Freedman D. Statistical models for causation. What inferential leverage do they provide? Evaluation Review 2006; 30(6):691-713. (Pubitemid 44705932)
15. European Medicines Agency ICH Topic E9 statistical principles for clinical trials, step 5. Note for guidance on statistical principles for clinical trials. CPMP/ICH/363/96, September 1998. Available from: http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/ich/036396en.pdf. Date of access 17/12/2008.
16. Jones B, Jarvis P, Jewis JA, Ebbutt AF. Trials to assess equivalence: the importance of rigorous methods. British Medical Journal 1996; 313:36-39. (Pubitemid 26229889)
17. Porta N, Bonet C, Cobo E. Discordance between reported intention-to-treat and per protocol analyses. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2007; 60:663-669. (Pubitemid 46891765)
18. Wright C, Sim J. Intention-to-treat to data from randomised controlled trials: a sensitivity analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2003; 56:833-842. (Pubitemid 37162657)
19. Little RJ, Long Q, Lin X. A comparison of methods for estimating the causal effect of a treatment in randomised clinical trials subject to non-compliance. Biometrics 2008; published online. DOI:10.1111/ j.1541-0420.2008.01066.x.
20. Rubin D. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomised and non-randomised studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1974; 66:688-701.
21. Heckman J, Urzua S, Vytlacil E. Understanding instrumental variables in models with essential heterogeneity. The Review of Economics and Statistics 2006; 88(3):389-432. (Pubitemid 44554714)
22. Dunn G, Maracy M, Tomenson B. Estimating treatment effects from randomised clinical trials with noncompliance and loss to follow-up: the role of instrumental variables. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 2005; 14:369-395. (Pubitemid 41300812)
23. Joffe M, Have T, Brensinger C. The compliance score as a regressor in randomised clinical trials. Biostatistics 2003; 4(3):327-340. (Pubitemid 36810086)
24. Follmann D. On the effect of treatment among would-be compliers: an analysis of the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2000; 95:1101-1109.
25. Jo B. Statistical power in randomised intervention studies with non-compliance. Psychological Methods 2002; 7:178-193.
26. Senn S. Controversies concerning randomisation and additivity in clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine 2004; 23:3729-3753. (Pubitemid 40074074)
27. Heckman J. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables: comment. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1996; 91:459-462.