Regression discontinuity design: Simulation and application in two cardiovascular trials with continuous outcomes

Epidemiology

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 503-511

  Van Leeuwen, Nikki ^a   Lingsma, Hester F ^a   De Craen, Anton J M ^b   Nieboer, Daan ^a   Mooijaart, Simon P ^b,c   Richard, Edo ^d,e   Steyerberg, Ewout W ^a  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c Institute for Evidence Based Medicine in Old Age   (Netherlands)

^d ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^e RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHOLESTEROL; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL COENZYME A REDUCTASE INHIBITOR; PRAVASTATIN;

ACCURACY; AGED; ARTICLE; BLOOD PRESSURE; CHOLESTEROL BLOOD LEVEL; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUASI EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; RANDOMIZATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REGRESSION DISCONTINUITY DESIGN; STUDY DESIGN; VALIDATION STUDY; VALIDITY; BLOOD; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; DEMENTIA; METHODOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY; RISK REDUCTION; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS; VERY ELDERLY;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BLOOD PRESSURE; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; CHOLESTEROL; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CORONARY DISEASE; DEMENTIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL-COA REDUCTASE INHIBITORS; LINEAR MODELS; MALE; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PRAVASTATIN; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; RISK REDUCTION BEHAVIOR; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84962086539     PISSN: 10443983     EISSN: 15315487     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000486     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Wheeler JL, Segal AD, Ledoux WR, et al. Patient willingness to enroll in a randomized surgical trial. Presented at the 25th Annual Summer Meeting of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society. July 15-18, 2009. Vancouver, British Columbia.
2. Jenkins V, Fallowfield L. Reasons for accepting or declining to participate in randomized clinical trials for cancer therapy. Br J Cancer. 2000;82:1783-1788.
3. Gotay CC. Accrual to cancer clinical trials: directions from the research literature. Soc Sci Med. 1991;33:569-577.
4. Harrison JD, Solomon MJ, Young JM, et al. Surgical and oncology trials for rectal cancer: who will participate? Surgery. 2007;142:94-101.
5. Abraham NS, Young JM, Solomon MJ. A systematic review of reasons for nonentry of eligible patients into surgical randomized controlled trials. Surgery. 2006;139:469-483.
6. Creel AH, Losina E, Mandl LA, et al. An assessment of willingness to participate in a randomized trial of arthroscopic knee surgery in patients with osteoarthritis. Contemp Clin Trials. 2005;26:169-178.
7. Chang BH, Hendricks AM, Slawsky MT, Locastro JS. Patient recruitment to a randomized clinical trial of behavioral therapy for chronic heart failure. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2004;4:8.
8. Martinson BC, Crain AL, Sherwood NE, Hayes MG, Pronk NP, O?Connor PJ. Population reach and recruitment bias in a maintenance RCT in physically active older adults. J Phys Act Health. 2010;7:127-135.
9. Vozdolska R, Sano M, Aisen P, Edland SD. The net effect of alternative allocation ratios on recruitment time and trial cost. Clin Trials. 2009;6:126-132.
10. Halpern SD. Prospective preference assessment: a method to enhance the ethics and efficiency of randomized controlled trials. Control Clin Trials. 2002;23:274-288.
11. Institute of Medicine Forum on Drug Discovery D, Translation 2010 Opportunities: Workshop Summary.
12. Gross CP, Mallory R, Heiat A, Krumholz HM. Reporting the recruitment process in clinical trials: who are these patients and how did they get there? Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:10-16.
13. Beckie TM, Mendonca MA, Fletcher GF, Schocken DD, Evans ME, Banks SM. Examining the challenges of recruiting women into a cardiac rehabilitation clinical trial. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev. 2009;29:13-21; quiz 22.
14. Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin 2002 229.
15. Cook TD, Shadish WR, Wong VC. Three conditions under which experiments and observational studies produce comparable causal estimates: new findings from within-study comparisons. J Policy Anal Manag. 2008;27:724-750.
16. Wong VC, Cook TD, Barnett WS, Jung K. An effectiveness-based evaluation of five state pre-kindergarten programs. J Policy Anal Manag. 2008;27:122-154.
17. Aiken LS, West SG, Schwalm DE, Carroll JL, Hsiung S. Comparison of a randomized and two quasi-experimental designs in a single outcome evaluation-Efficacy of a university-level remedial writing program. Eval Rev. 1998;22:207-244.
18. Goldberger AS. Selection bias in evaluating treatment effects: some formal illustrations. Working Paper, Economics Department, University of Wisconsin. 1972.
19. Buddelmeyer H, Skoufias E. An evaluation of the performance of regression discontinuity design on PROGRESA. World Bank Policy Research. Aug 2004.
20. Black D, Galdo J, Smith J. Estimating the selection bias of the regression discontinuity design using experimental data. Working paper, University of Chicago. 2007.
21. Vandenbroucke JP, le Cessie S. Commentary: regression discontinuity design: let?s give it a try to evaluate medical and public health interventions. Epidemiology. 2014;25:738-741.
22. Bor J, Moscoe E, Mutevedzi P, Newell ML, Bärnighausen T. Regression discontinuity designs in epidemiology: causal inference without randomized trials. Epidemiology. 2014;25:729-737.
23. O?Keeffe AG , Geneletti S, Baio G, Sharples LD, Nazareth I, Petersen I. Regression discontinuity designs: an approach to the evaluation of treatment efficacy in primary care using observational data. BMJ. 2014;349:g5293.
24. Moscoe E, Bor J, Bärnighausen T. Regression discontinuity designs are underutilized in medicine, epidemiology, and public health: a review of current and best practice. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68:122-133.
25. Richard E, Van den Heuvel E, Moll van Charante EP, et al. Prevention of dementia by intensive vascular care (PreDIVA): a cluster-randomized trial in progress. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2009;23:198-204.
26. Shepherd J, Blauw GJ, Murphy MB, et al.; PROSPER study group. PROspective Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk. Pravastatin in elderly individuals at risk of vascular disease (PROSPER): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2002;360:1623-1630.
27. White HD, Simes RJ, Anderson NE, et al. Pravastatin therapy and the risk of stroke. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:317-326.
28. Port S, Demer L, Jennrich R, Walter D, Garfinkel A. Systolic blood pressure and mortality. Lancet. 2000;355:175-180.
29. Steyerberg EW. Clinical Prediction Models. A Practical Approach to Development, Validation, and Updating. New York, NY: Springer 2009.
30. Harrell FE Jr, Lee KL, Pollock BG. Regression models in clinical studies: determining relationships between predictors and response. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1988;80:1198-1202.
31. Ellis PM, Butow PN, Tattersall MH. Informing breast cancer patients about clinical trials: a randomized clinical trial of an educational booklet. Ann Oncol. 2002;13:1414-1423.
32. Peters R, Beckett N, Forette F, et al.; HYVET investigators. Incident dementia and blood pressure lowering in the hypertension in the very elderly trial cognitive function assessment (HYVET-COG): a double-blind, placebo controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 2008;7:683-689.