Literature DB >> 26239275

Latent class instrumental variables: a clinical and biostatistical perspective.

Stuart G Baker1, Barnett S Kramer1, Karen S Lindeman2.   

Abstract

In some two-arm randomized trials, some participants receive the treatment assigned to the other arm as a result of technical problems, refusal of a treatment invitation, or a choice of treatment in an encouragement design. In some before-and-after studies, the availability of a new treatment changes from one time period to this next. Under assumptions that are often reasonable, the latent class instrumental variable (IV) method estimates the effect of treatment received in the aforementioned scenarios involving all-or-none compliance and all-or-none availability. Key aspects are four initial latent classes (sometimes called principal strata) based on treatment received if in each randomization group or time period, the exclusion restriction assumption (in which randomization group or time period is an instrumental variable), the monotonicity assumption (which drops an implausible latent class from the analysis), and the estimated effect of receiving treatment in one latent class (sometimes called efficacy, the local average treatment effect, or the complier average causal effect). Since its independent formulations in the biostatistics and econometrics literatures, the latent class IV method (which has no well-established name) has gained increasing popularity. We review the latent class IV method from a clinical and biostatistical perspective, focusing on underlying assumptions, methodological extensions, and applications in our fields of obstetrics and cancer research.
Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  all-or-none compliance; causal inference; encouragement design, observational; paired availability design; principal stratification, randomized trial

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26239275      PMCID: PMC4715605          DOI: 10.1002/sim.6612

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


  44 in total

1.  Analyzing a randomized trial on breast self-examination with noncompliance and missing outcomes.

Authors:  Fabrizia Mealli; Guido W Imbens; Salvatore Ferro; Annibale Biggeri
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 5.899

2.  Predicting treatment effect from surrogate endpoints and historical trials: an extrapolation involving probabilities of a binary outcome or survival to a specific time.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker; Daniel J Sargent; Marc Buyse; Tomasz Burzykowski
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2011-08-13       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  Simultaneous-equation estimation in a clinical trial of the effect of smoking on birth weight.

Authors:  T Permutt; J R Hebel
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1989-06       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Estimating the causal effect of compliance on binary outcome in randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  E Goetghebeur; G Molenberghs; J Katz
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1998-02-15       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Influence of participation on mortality in a randomized trial of vitamin A prophylaxis.

Authors:  I Tarwotjo; A Sommer; K P West; E Djunaedi; L Mele; B Hawkins
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  1987-06       Impact factor: 7.045

6.  A Bayesian approach to improved estimation of causal effect predictiveness for a principal surrogate endpoint.

Authors:  Corwin M Zigler; Thomas R Belin
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2012-02-20       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  The paired availability design: a proposal for evaluating epidural analgesia during labor.

Authors:  S G Baker; K S Lindeman
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1994-11-15       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 8.  Intention-to-treat analysis and the goals of clinical trials.

Authors:  L B Sheiner; D B Rubin
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 6.875

Review 9.  Beyond intention to treat: what is the right question?

Authors:  Ian Shrier; Russell J Steele; Evert Verhagen; Rob Herbert; Corinne A Riddell; Jay S Kaufman
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2013-10-03       Impact factor: 2.486

10.  The paired availability design for historical controls.

Authors:  S G Baker; K S Lindeman; B S Kramer
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2001-09-26       Impact factor: 4.615

View more
  8 in total

1.  Five criteria for using a surrogate endpoint to predict treatment effect based on data from multiple previous trials.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2017-11-21       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Editorial: Challenges in Quantifying Overdiagnosis.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker; Philip C Prorok; Barnett S Kramer
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2017-10-01       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Maximum likelihood estimation with missing outcomes: From simplicity to complexity.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2019-08-08       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  A Bayesian Hierarchical CACE Model Accounting for Incomplete Noncompliance With Application to a Meta-analysis of Epidural Analgesia on Cesarean Section.

Authors:  Jincheng Zhou; James S Hodges; Haitao Chu
Journal:  J Am Stat Assoc       Date:  2021-04-27       Impact factor: 5.033

5.  Limited versus Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection for Prostate Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Karim A Touijer; Daniel D Sjoberg; Nicole Benfante; Vincent P Laudone; Behfar Ehdaie; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Andrew Vickers
Journal:  Eur Urol Oncol       Date:  2021-04-15

6.  Assessing complier average causal effects from longitudinal trials with multiple endpoints and treatment noncompliance: An application to a study of Arthritis Health Journal.

Authors:  Lulu Guo; Yi Qian; Hui Xie
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2022-03-10       Impact factor: 2.497

7.  Latent class instrumental variables and the monotonicity assumption.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker
Journal:  Emerg Themes Epidemiol       Date:  2020-03-19

8.  Meta-analysis of breast cancer mortality benefit and overdiagnosis adjusted for adherence: improving information on the effects of attending screening mammography.

Authors:  Gemma Jacklyn; Paul Glasziou; Petra Macaskill; Alexandra Barratt
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2016-04-28       Impact factor: 7.640

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.