Bias in estimating the causal hazard ratio when using two-stage instrumental variable methods

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 34, Issue 14, 2015, Pages 2235-2265

  Wan, Fei ^a   Small, Dylan ^a   Bekelman, Justin E ^b   Mitra, Nandita ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Bias; Instrumental variable; Survival; Two stage predictor substitution; Two stage residual inclusion; Unmeasured confounding

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; CANCER SURVIVAL; CAUSAL HAZARD RATIO; HAZARD RATIO; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LOCAL AVERAGE TREATMENT EFFECT; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; PROBABILITY; PROSTATE CANCER; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL BIAS; STATISTICAL PARAMETERS; SURVIVAL TIME; THERAPY EFFECT; TWO STAGE PREDICTOR SUBSTITUTION; TWO STAGE RESIDUAL INCLUSION; WEIBULL DISTRIBUTION; AGED; CANCER REGISTRY; CAUSALITY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EPIDEMIOLOGY; EVALUATION STUDY; MALE; MEDICARE; MORTALITY; PROCEDURES; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REGRESSION ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES;

AGED; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CAUSALITY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); EVALUATION STUDIES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; LINEAR MODELS; MALE; MEDICARE; OUTCOME AND PROCESS ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PROBABILITY; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SEER PROGRAM; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84930182083     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.6470     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Hernán MA, Robins JM. Instruments for causal inference: an epidemiologist's dream. Epidemiology 2006; 17(4):360-372.
2. Angrist J, Imbens G, Rubin DB. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1996; 91:444-455.
3. Bekelman JE, Mitra N, Handorf E, Uzzo RG, Hahn S, Polsky D, Armstrong K. Effectiveness of androgen deprivation therapy and radiotherapy for older men with locally advanced prostate cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2015; 33(7):716-722.
4. Terza J, Basu A, Rathouz P. Two-stage residual inclusion estimation: addressing endogeneity in health econometric modeling. Journal of Health Economics 2008; 27(3):531-543.
5. Cai B, Small D, Ten Have T. Two-stage instrumental variable methods for estimating the causal odds ratio: analysis of bias. Statistics in Medicine 2011; 30(15):1809-1824.
6. Gore JL, Litwin MS, Lai J, Yano EM, Madison R, Setodji C, Adams JL, Saigal CS. Use of radical cystectomy for patients with invasive bladder cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2010; 102(11):802-811.
7. Hadley J, Yabroff KR, Barrett MJ, Penson DF, Saigal CS, Potosky AL. Comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer treatments: evaluating statistical adjustments for confounding in observational data. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2010; 102(23):1780-1793.
8. Tan HJ, Norton EC, Ye Z, Hafez KS, Gore JL, Miller DC. Long-term survival following partial vs radical nephrectomy among older patients with early-stage kidney cancer. The Journal of the American Medical Association 2012; 307(15):1629-1635.
9. Widmark A, Klepp O, Solberg A, Damber JE, Angelsen A, Fransson P, Lund JA, Tasdemir I, Hoyer M, Wiklund F, Fosså SD, Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study 7, Swedish Association for Urological Oncology 3. Endocrine treatment, with or without radiotherapy, in locally advanced prostate cancer (SPCG-7/SFUO-3): an open randomised phase III trial. Lancet 2009; 373(9660):301-308.
10. Warde P, Mason M, Ding K, Kirkbride P, Brundage M, Cowan R, Gospodarowicz M, Sanders K, Kostashuk E, Swanson G, Barber J, Hiltz A, Parmar MKB, Sathya J, Anderson J, Hayter C, Hetherington J, Sydes MR, Parulekar W, for the NCIG CTG PR.3/MRC UK PR07 investigators. Combined androgen deprivation therapy and radiation therapy for locally advanced prostate cancer: a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2011; 378(9809):2104-2111.
11. Nie H, Cheng J, Small DS. Inference for the effect of treatment on survival probability in randomized trials with noncompliance and administrative censoring. Biometrics 2011; 67(4):1397-1405.
12. Rubin DB. Statistics and causal inference: comment: which ifs have causal answers. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1986; 81:961-962.
13. Rubin DB. Comment: Neyman (1923) and causal inference in experiments and observational studies. Statistical Science 1990; 5:472-480.
14. Abadie A. Semiparametric instrumental variable estimation of treatment response models. Journal of Econometrics 2003; 113:231-263.
15. Imbens G, Angrist J. Identification and estimation of local average treatment effects. Econometrica 1994; 62:467-475.
16. Rubin DB. Causal inference using potential outcomes: design, modelling, decisions. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2005; 100:322-331.
17. Struthers CA, Kalbfleisch JD. Misspecified proportional hazard models. Biometrika 1986; 73:363-369.
18. Ten Have T, Joffe M, Cary M. Causal logistic models for non-compliance under randomized treatment with univariate binary response. Statistics in Medicine 2003; 22(8):1255-1283.
19. Cuzick J, Sasieni P, Myles J, Tyrer J. Estimating the effect of treatment in a proportional hazards model in the presence of non-compliance and contamination. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B (Methodological) 2007; 69:565-588.