Instrumental variable meta-analysis of individual patient data: Application to adjust for treatment non-compliance

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 11, Issue , 2011, Pages

  Miladinovic, Branko ^a   Kumar, Ambuj ^a   Hozo, Iztok ^c   Djulbegovic, Benjamin ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

^b H LEE MOFFITT CANCER CENTER AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c INDIANA UNIVERSITY NORTHWEST   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

METHOTREXATE;

ARTICLE; BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTATION; EPIDEMIOLOGY; GRAFT VERSUS HOST REACTION; HUMAN; INTENTION TO TREAT ANALYSIS; META ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICS; STEM CELL TRANSPLANTATION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTATION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; GRAFT VS HOST DISEASE; HUMANS; INTENTION TO TREAT ANALYSIS; METHOTREXATE; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; RESEARCH DESIGN; SELECTION BIAS; STEM CELL TRANSPLANTATION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 79954569536     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-55     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Intention-to-treat principle. VM Montori GH Guyatt, Cmaj 2001 165 10 1339 1341 11760981 (Pubitemid 33044065)
2. Inclusion of patients in clinical trial analysis: the intention-to-treat principle. SR Heritier VJ Gebski AC Keech, Med J Aust 2003 179 8 438 440 14558871 (Pubitemid 37328013)
3. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. JPT Higgins S Green Cochrane Collaboration, Chichester, England; Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell 2008
4. Clinical trials: a methodologic perspective. S Piantadosi, Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley-Interscience 2 2005
5. Intention-to-treat analysis and the goals of clinical trials. LB Sheiner DB Rubin, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics 1995 57 1 6 15 10.1016/0009-9236(95)90260-0 7828382
6. Intention to treat, per protocol, as treated and instrumental variable estimators given non-compliance and effect heterogeneity. R McNamee, Stat Med 2009 28 21 2639 2652 10.1002/sim.3636 19579227
7. Designing clinical research. SB Hulley, Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 3 2007
8. Discordance between reported intention-to-treat and per protocol analyses. N Porta C Bonet E Cobo, J Clin Epidemiol 2007 60 7 663 669 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.09.013 17573981 (Pubitemid 46891765)
9. A comparison of methods for estimating the causal effect of a treatment in randomized clinical trials subject to noncompliance. RJ Little Q Long X Lin, Biometrics 2009 65 2 640 649 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2008.01066.x 18510650
10. An IV for the RCT: using instrumental variables to adjust for treatment contamination in randomised controlled trials. JB Sussman RA Hayward, BMJ (Clinical research ed 340 2073
11. Using the instrumental variables estimator to analyze noninferiority trials with noncompliance. MY Kim, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics 20 4 745 758
12. Instrumental variables and interactions in the causal analysis of a complex clinical trial. SJ Bond IR White A Sarah Walker, Stat Med 2007 26 7 1473 1496 10.1002/sim.2644 16900567 (Pubitemid 46403205)
13. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. JD Angrist GW Imbens DB Rubin, Journal of the American Statistical Association 1996 91 434 444 455 10.2307/2291629 (Pubitemid 126412813)
14. An introduction to instrumental variables for epidemiologists (vol 29, pg 722, 2000). S Greenland, International Journal of Epidemiology 2000 29 6 1102 1102 11101554
15. Instrumental variables II: instrumental variable application-in 25 variations, the physician prescribing preference generally was strong and reduced covariate imbalance. JA Rassen MA Brookhart RJ Glynn MA Mittleman S Schneeweiss, J Clin Epidemiol 2009 62 12 1233 1241 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.12. 006 19345561
16. Instrumental variables I: instrumental variables exploit natural variation in nonexperimental data to estimate causal relationships. JA Rassen MA Brookhart RJ Glynn MA Mittleman S Schneeweiss, J Clin Epidemiol 2009 62 12 1226 1232 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.12.005 19356901
17. Instrumental variable analysis for estimation of treatment effects with dichotomous outcomes. JA Rassen S Schneeweiss RJ Glynn MA Mittleman MA Brookhart, Am J Epidemiol 2009 169 3 273 284 19033525
18. Practical methodology of meta-analyses (overviews) using updated individual patient data. Cochrane Working Group. LA Stewart MJ Clarke, Stat Med 1995 14 19 2057 2079 10.1002/sim.4780141902 8552887
19. To IPD or not to IPD? Advantages and disadvantages of systematic reviews using individual patient data. LA Stewart JF Tierney, Eval Health Prof 2002 25 1 76 97 10.1177/0163278702025001006 11868447 (Pubitemid 34157785)
20. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. DF Stroup JA Berlin SC Morton I Olkin GD Williamson D Rennie D Moher BJ Becker TA Sipe SB Thacker, Jama 2000 283 15 2008 2012 10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 10789670 (Pubitemid 30214957)
21. Individual patient data meta-analysis of allogeneic peripheral blood stem cell transplant vs bone marrow transplant in the management of hematological malignancies: indirect assessment of the effect of day 11 methotrexate administration. Stem Cell Trialists' Group, Bone Marrow Transplant 2006 38 8 539 546 10.1038/sj.bmt.1705488 16953207
22. Chronic graft-versus-host disease after allogeneic peripheral-blood stem-cell transplantation: a little methotrexate goes a long way. J Mehta S Singhal, J Clin Oncol 2002 20 2 603 606 11786594 (Pubitemid 34072548)
23. Evaluating the validity of an instrumental variable study of neuroleptics: can between-physician differences in prescribing patterns be used to estimate treatment effects? MA Brookhart JA Rassen PS Wang C Dormuth H Mogun S Schneeweiss, Med Care 2007 45 10 Supl 2 116 122 17909369
24. Instrumental variable methods in comparative safety and effectiveness research. MA Brookhart JA Rassen S Schneeweiss, Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2010 19 6 537 554 10.1002/pds.1908 20354968
25. Preference-based instrumental variable methods for the estimation of treatment effects: assessing validity and interpreting results. MA Brookhart S Schneeweiss, Int J Biostat 2007 3 1 14 19655038
26. When are observational studies as credible as randomised trials? JP Vandenbroucke, Lancet 2004 363 9422 1728 1731 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16261-2 15158638 (Pubitemid 38670333)
27. Instrumental variables: application and limitations. EP Martens WR Pestman A de Boer SV Belitser OH Klungel, Epidemiology 2006 17 3 260 267 10.1097/01.ede.0000215160.88317.cb 16617274
28. Instruments for causal inference: an epidemiologist's dream? MA Hernan JM Robins, Epidemiology 2006 17 4 360 372 10.1097/01.ede.0000222409.00878.37 16755261 (Pubitemid 44305508)
29. Use of comorbidity scores for control of confounding in studies using administrative databases. S Schneeweiss M Maclure, Int J Epidemiol 2000 29 5 891 898 10.1093/ije/29.5.891 11034974
30. The Bias of Instrumental Variable Estimators. A Buse, Econometrica 1992 60 1 173 180 10.2307/2951682
31. Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. D Staiger JH Stock, Econometrica 1997 65 3 557 586 10.2307/2171753 (Pubitemid 127466159)
32. A multilevel model framework for meta-analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes. RM Turner RZ Omar M Yang H Goldstein SG Thompson, Stat Med 2000 19 24 3417 3432 10.1002/1097-0258(20001230)19:24<3417::AID-SIM614>3.0. CO;2-L 11122505 (Pubitemid 32056694)
33. Meta-analysis of ordinal outcomes using individual patient data. A Whitehead RZ Omar JP Higgins E Savaluny RM Turner SG Thompson, Stat Med 2001 20 15 2243 2260 10.1002/sim.919 11468762 (Pubitemid 32725504)
34. Comparison of meta-analysis versus analysis of variance of individual patient data. I Olkin A Sampson, Biometrics 1998 54 1 317 322 10.2307/2534018 9544524 (Pubitemid 28158806)
35. Comparison of one-step and two-step meta-analysis models using individual patient data. T Mathew K Nordstrom, Biometrical journal 52 2 271 287
36. On the equivalence of meta-analysis using literature and using individual patient data. T Mathew K Nordstrom, Biometrics 1999 55 4 1221 1223 10.1111/j.0006-341X.1999.01221.x 11315071
37. Confounding of subgroup analyses in randomized data. RH Groenwold AR Donders GJ van der Heijden AW Hoes MM Rovers, Arch Intern Med 2009 169 16 1532 1534 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.250 19752412
38. Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials: a review of methods used in practice. MC Simmonds JP Higgins LA Stewart JF Tierney MJ Clarke SG Thompson, Clinical trials (London, England) 2005 2 3 209 217 (Pubitemid 40910470)
39. Individual patient data meta-analysis of allogeneic peripheral blood stem cell transplant vs bone marrow transplant in the management of hematological malignancies: indirect assessment of the effect of day 11 methotrexate administration. Stem Cell Trialists' Group, Bone Marrow Transplant 2006 38 8 539 546 10.1038/sj.bmt.1705488 16953207
40. Allogeneic peripheral blood stem-cell compared with bone marrow transplantation in the management of hematologic malignancies: an individual patient data meta-analysis of nine randomized trials. Stem Cell Trialists' Group, J Clin Oncol 2005 23 22 5074 5087 16051954
41. Too Much Ado about Instrumental Variable Approach: Is the Cure Worse than the Disease? O Baser, Value Health 2009
42. Instrument relevance in multivariate linear models: A simple measure. j Shea, Review of Economics and Statistics 1997 79 348 352
43. Problems with Instrumental Variables Estimation When the Correlation between the Instruments and the Endogenous Explanatory Variable Is Weak. J Bound DA Jaeger RM Baker, Journal of the American Statistical Association 1995 90 430 443 450 10.2307/2291055
44. A comparative study of instrumental variables estimators for nonlinear simultaneous models. RJTD Bowden, JASA 1981 76 988 995
45. Qualitative response models: a survey. T Amemiya, J Econ Lit 1981 19 4 1483 1536
46. Version 11 [computer program]. Stata, College Station, TX: Stata Corporation 9 2010
47. Enhanced routines for instrumental variables/GMM estimation and testing. C Baum MS S Stillman, Boston College Economics Working Paper No667