Performance of statistical methods for analysing survival data in the presence of non-random compliance

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 29, Issue 29, 2010, Pages 2994-3003

  Odondi, Lang'o ^a   McNamee, Roseanne ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bias; Causal inference; Clinical trials; Models; Noncompliance; Structural; Survival

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CAUSAL MODELING; HAZARD RATIO; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; PARAMETRIC TEST; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; PUBLISHING; RANDOMIZATION; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SURVIVAL RATE;

ALGORITHMS; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMANS; INTENTION TO TREAT ANALYSIS; MEDICATION ADHERENCE; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 78649660059     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.4070     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Lachin JM. Statistical considerations in the intent-to-treat principle. Controlled Clinical Trials 2000; 21:167-189.
2. Marcus SM, Gibbons RD. Estimating the efficacy of receiving treatment in randomized clinical trials with noncompliance. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology 2001; 2:247-258.
3. Lee YJ, Ellenberg JH, Hirtz DG, Nelson KB. Analysis of clinical trials by treatment actually received: is it really an option? Statistics in Medicine 1991; 10:1595-1605.
4. McNamee R. Intention to treat, per protocol, as treated and instrumental variable estimators given non-compliance and effect heterogeneity. Statistics in Medicine 2009; 28:2639-2652.
5. White IR. Uses and limitations of randomization-based efficacy estimators. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 2005; 14:327-347.
6. Cox DR. Regression models and life tables (with Discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 1972; 34:187-220.
7. Robins JM, Tsiatis AA. Correcting for noncompliance in randomized trials using rank preserving structural failure time models. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods 1991; A20(8):2609-2631.
8. Cox DR, Oakes D. The Analysis of Survival Data. Chapman & Hall: London, 1984.
9. Collet D. Modelling Survival Data in Medical Research (2nd edn). Chapman & Hall/CRC: Boca Raton, FL, 2003.
10. Loeys T, Goetghebeur EJT. A causal proportional hazards estimator for the effect of treatment actually received in a randomized trial with all-or-nothing compliance. Biometrics 2003; 59:100-105.
11. White IR, Walker SA, Babiker AG. An approximate randomisation-respecting adjustment to the hazard ratio for time-dependent treatment switches in clinical trials. Unpublished manuscript: Available at
12. Aalen OO. Frailty Models. In Statistical Analysis of Medical Data: New Developments, Everitt BS, Dunn G (eds). Arnold: London, 1998; 59-72.
13. Kleijnen JPC. A note on sampling two correlated variables. Simulation 1974; 45-46.
14. Imbens GW, Rubin DB. Bayesian inference for causal effects in randomized experiments with non-compliance. The Annals of Statistics 1997; 25:305-327.
15. Kim LG, White IR. Compliance-adjusted intervention effects in survival data. The Stata Journal 2004; 4(3):257-264.
16. White IR, Goetghebeur EJT. Clinical trials comparing two treatment policies: which aspects of the treatment changes in the assessment of the causal effect of treatment. Statistics in Medicine 1998; 17(3):319-339.
17. Walker SA, White IR, Babiker AG. Parametric randomization-based methods for correcting for treatment changes in the assessment of the causal effect of treatment. Statistics in Medicine 2004; 23:571-590.
18. White IR, Walker SA, Babiker AG. Randomization-based efficacy estimator. The Stata Journal 2002; 2(2):140-150.
19. Goetghebeur EJT, Loeys T. A sensitivity analysis for causal parameters in structural proportional hazards models. Sort 2003; 27(1):31-40.