Literature DB >> 12687654

Causal logistic models for non-compliance under randomized treatment with univariate binary response.

Thomas R Ten Have1, Marshall Joffe, Mark Cary.   

Abstract

We propose a method for estimating the marginal causal log-odds ratio for binary outcomes under treatment non-compliance in placebo-randomized trials. This estimation method is a marginal alternative to the causal logistic approach by Nagelkerke et al. (2000) that conditions on partially unknown compliance (that is, adherence to treatment) status, and also differs from previous approaches that estimate risk differences or ratios in subgroups defined by compliance status. The marginal causal method proposed in this paper is based on an extension of Robins' G-estimation approach for fitting linear or log-linear structural nested models to a logistic model. Comparing the marginal and conditional causal log-odds ratio estimates provides a way of assessing the magnitude of unmeasured confounding of the treatment effect due to treatment non-adherence. More specifically, we show through simulations that under weak confounding, the conditional and marginal procedures yield similar estimates, whereas under stronger confounding, they behave differently in terms of bias and confidence interval coverage. The parametric structures that represent such confounding are not identifiable. Hence, the proof of consistency of causal estimators and corresponding simulations are based on two different models that fully identify the causal effects being estimated. These models differ in the way that compliance is related to potential outcomes, and thus differ in the way that the causal effect is identified. The simulations also show that the proposed marginal causal estimation approach performs well in terms of bias under the different levels of confounding due to non-adherence and under different causal logistic models. We also provide results from the analyses of two data sets further showing how a comparison of the marginal and conditional estimators can help evaluate the magnitude of confounding due to non-adherence. Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12687654     DOI: 10.1002/sim.1401

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  8 in total

1.  Causal Mediation Analyses for Randomized Trials.

Authors:  Kevin G Lynch; Mark Cary; Robert Gallop; Thomas R Ten Have
Journal:  Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol       Date:  2008

2.  Adjustment for Variable Adherence Under Hierarchical Structure: Instrumental Variable Modeling Through Compound Residual Inclusion.

Authors:  Tyson H Holmes; Donna M Zulman; Clete A Kushida
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2016-01-13       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  Randomization-Based Inference within Principal Strata.

Authors:  Tracy L Nolen; Michael G Hudgens
Journal:  J Am Stat Assoc       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 5.033

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

Authors:  Fei Wan; Dylan Small; Justin E Bekelman; Nandita Mitra
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2015-03-20       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Improving data reliability using a non-compliance detection method versus using pharmacokinetic criteria.

Authors:  Smita A Kshirsagar; Terrence F Blaschke; Lewis B Sheiner; M Krygowski; Edward P Acosta; Davide Verotta
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2006-09-27       Impact factor: 2.745

Review 6.  Design elements in implementation research: a structured review of child welfare and child mental health studies.

Authors:  John Landsverk; C Hendricks Brown; Jennifer Rolls Reutz; Lawrence Palinkas; Sarah McCue Horwitz
Journal:  Adm Policy Ment Health       Date:  2011-01

7.  Rationale and Design of the Randomized Evaluation of Default Access to Palliative Services (REDAPS) Trial.

Authors:  Katherine R Courtright; Vanessa Madden; Nicole B Gabler; Elizabeth Cooney; Dylan S Small; Andrea Troxel; David Casarett; Mary Ersek; J Brian Cassel; Lauren Hersch Nicholas; Gabriel Escobar; Sarah H Hill; Dan O'Brien; Mark Vogel; Scott D Halpern
Journal:  Ann Am Thorac Soc       Date:  2016-09

8.  Bayesian methods for meta-analysis of causal relationships estimated using genetic instrumental variables.

Authors:  Stephen Burgess; Simon G Thompson; S Burgess; S G Thompson; G Andrews; N J Samani; A Hall; P Whincup; R Morris; D A Lawlor; G Davey Smith; N Timpson; S Ebrahim; Y Ben-Shlomo; G Davey Smith; N Timpson; M Brown; S Ricketts; M Sandhu; A Reiner; B Psaty; L Lange; M Cushman; J Hung; P Thompson; J Beilby; N Warrington; L J Palmer; B G Nordestgaard; A Tybjaerg-Hansen; J Zacho; C Wu; G Lowe; I Tzoulaki; M Kumari; M Sandhu; J F Yamamoto; B Chiodini; M Franzosi; G J Hankey; K Jamrozik; L Palmer; E Rimm; J Pai; B Psaty; S Heckbert; J Bis; S Anand; J Engert; R Collins; R Clarke; O Melander; G Berglund; P Ladenvall; L Johansson; J-H Jansson; G Hallmans; A Hingorani; S Humphries; E Rimm; J Manson; J Pai; H Watkins; R Clarke; J Hopewell; D Saleheen; R Frossard; J Danesh; N Sattar; M Robertson; J Shepherd; E Schaefer; A Hofman; J C M Witteman; I Kardys; Y Ben-Shlomo; G Davey Smith; N Timpson; U de Faire; A Bennet; N Sattar; I Ford; C Packard; M Kumari; J Manson; Debbie A Lawlor; George Davey Smith; S Anand; R Collins; J P Casas; J Danesh; G Davey Smith; M Franzosi; A Hingorani; D A Lawlor; J Manson; B G Nordestgaard; N J Samani; M Sandhu; L Smeeth; F Wensley; S Anand; J Bowden; S Burgess; J P Casas; E Di Angelantonio; J Engert; P Gao; T Shah; L Smeeth; S G Thompson; C Verzilli; M Walker; J Whittaker; A Hingorani; J Danesh
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2010-05-30       Impact factor: 2.373

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.