Instrumental variable methods for a binary outcome were used to informatively address noncompliance in a randomized trial in surgery

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 96, Issue , 2018, Pages 126-132

  Cook, Jonathan A ^a   MacLennan, Graeme S ^b   Palmer, Tom ^c   Lois, Noemi ^d   Emsley, Richard ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^c LANCASTER UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^d QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Binary; Causal modeling; Instrumental variable; Noncompliance; RCT; Risk ratio

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CAUSAL MODELING; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTAL VARIABLE ANALYSIS; INTENTION TO TREAT ANALYSIS; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RETINA MACULA HOLE; RISK ASSESSMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TREATMENT REFUSAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EYE SURGERY; ODDS RATIO; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POISSON DISTRIBUTION; PROCEDURES; RETINA TEAR;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMANS; ODDS RATIO; OPHTHALMOLOGIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PATIENT OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POISSON DISTRIBUTION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RETINAL PERFORATIONS;

EID: 85039435260     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.11.011     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Nagelkerke, N., Fidler, V., Bernsen, R., Borgdorff, M., Estimating treatment effects in randomized clinical trials in the presence of non-compliance. Stat Med 19 (2000), 1849–1864.
2. Dunn, G., Emsley, R., Liu, H., Landau, S., Green, J., White, I., et al. Evaluation and validation of social and psychological markers in randomised trials of complex interventions in mental health: a methodological research programme. Health Technol Assess 19 (2015), 1–115 v-vi.
3. Dunn, G., Maracy, M., Tomenson, B., Estimating treatment effects from randomized clinical trials with noncompliance and loss to follow-up: the role of instrumental variable methods. Stat Methods Med Res 14 (2005), 369–395.
4. Greenland, S., An introduction to instrumental variables for epidemiologists. Int J Epidemiol 29 (2000), 722–729.
5. White, I.R., Uses and limitations of randomization-based efficacy estimators. Stat Methods Med Res 14 (2005), 327–347.
6. Ertefaie, A., Small, D.S., Flory, J.H., Hennessy, S., A tutorial on the use of instrumental variables in pharmacoepidemiology. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 26:4 (2017), 357–367.
7. Hertogh, E.M., Schuit, A.J., Peeters, P.H., Monninkhof, E.M., Noncompliance in lifestyle intervention studies: the instrumental variable method provides insight into the bias. J Clin Epidemiol 63 (2010), 900–906.
8. Ye, C., Beyene, J., Browne, G., Thabane, L., Estimating treatment effects in randomised controlled trials with non-compliance: a simulation study. BMJ Open, 4, 2014, e005362.
9. Palmer, T.M., Ramsahai, R.R., Didelez, V., Sheehan, N.A., Nonparametric bounds for the causal effect in a binary instrumental-variable model. Stata J 11 (2011), 345–367.
10. Palmer, T.M., Thompson, J.R., Tobin, M.D., Sheehan, N.A., Burton, P.R., Adjusting for bias and unmeasured confounding in Mendelian randomization studies with binary responses. Int J Epidemiol 37 (2008), 1161–1168.
11. Boef, A.G., Dekkers, O.M., Vandenbroucke, J.P., le Cessie, S., Sample size importantly limits the usefulness of instrumental variable methods, depending on instrument strength and level of confounding. J Clin Epidemiol 67 (2014), 1258–1264.
12. Ionescu-Ittu, R., Abrahamowicz, M., Pilote, L., Treatment effect estimates varied depending on the definition of the provider prescribing preference-based instrumental variables. J Clin Epidemiol 65 (2012), 155–162.
13. Ergina, P.L., Cook, J.A., Blazeby, J.M., Boutron, I., Clavien, P.A., Reeves, B.C., et al. Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. Lancet 374 (2009), 1097–1104.
14. Cook, J.A., The challenges faced in the design, conduct and analysis of surgical randomised controlled trials. Trials, 10, 2009, 9.
15. Adewuyi, T.E., MacLennan, G., Cook, J.A., Non-compliance with randomised allocation and missing outcome data in randomised controlled trials evaluating surgical interventions: a systematic review. BMC Res Notes, 8, 2015, 403.
16. Sitlani, C.M., Heagerty, P.J., Blood, E.A., Tosteson, T.D., Longitudinal structural mixed models for the analysis of surgical trials with noncompliance. Stat Med 31 (2012), 1738–1760.
17. Lois, N., Burr, J., Norrie, J., Vale, L., Cook, J., McDonald, A., et al. Internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling for idiopathic full-thickness macular hole: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 52 (2011), 1586–1592.
18. Lois, N., Burr, J., Norrie, J., Vale, L., Cook, J., McDonald, A., et al. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of internal limiting membrane peeling for patients with idiopathic full thickness macular hole. Protocol for a randomised controlled trial: FILMS (Full-thickness Macular Hole and Internal Limiting Membrane Peeling Study). Trials, 9, 2008, 61.
19. Spiteri Cornish, K., Lois, N., Scott, N.W., Burr, J., Cook, J., Boachie, C., et al. Vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling for idiopathic full-thickness macular hole. Ophthalmology 121 (2014), 649–655.
20. Swanson, S.A., Hernan, M.A., The challenging interpretation of instrumental variable estimates under monotonicity. Int J Epidemiol, 2017, 10.1093/ije/dyx038 [Epub ahead of print].
21. Imbens, G.W., Angrist, J.D., Identification and estimation of local average treatment effects. Econometrica 62 (1994), 467–475.
22. Terza, J.V., Basu, A., Rathouz, P.J., Two-stage residual inclusion estimation: addressing endogeneity in health econometric modeling. J Health Econ 27:3 (2008), 531–543.
23. Terza, J., Simpler standard errors for two-stage optimization estimators. Stata J 16 (2016), 368–385.
24. Charles, P., Giraudeau, B., Dechartres, A., Baron, G., Ravaud, P., Reporting of sample size calculation in randomised controlled trials: review. BMJ, 338, 2009, b1732.
25. Swanson, S.A., Holme, O., Loberg, M., Kalager, M., Bretthauer, M., Hoff, G., et al. Bounding the per-protocol effect in randomized trials: an application to colorectal cancer screening. Trials, 16, 2015, 541.
26. Bhattacharya, J., Goldman, D., McCaffrey, D., Estimating probit models with self-selected treatments. Stat Med 25 (2006), 389–413.
27. Cook, J.A., Ramsay, C.R., Norrie, J., Recruitment to publicly funded trials–are surgical trials really different?. Contemp Clin Trials 29 (2008), 631–634.
28. Pasu, S., Bunce, C., Hooper, R., Thomson, A., Bainbridge, J., PIMS (Positioning in Macular hole Surgery) trial - a multicentre interventional comparative randomised controlled clinical trial comparing face-down positioning, with an inactive face-forward position on the outcome of surgery for large macular holes: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials, 16, 2015, 527.