Literature DB >> 28025183

Inequality in treatment benefits: Can we determine if a new treatment benefits the many or the few?

Emily J Huang1, Ethan X Fang2, Daniel F Hanley3, Michael Rosenblum4.   

Abstract

In many randomized controlled trials, the primary analysis focuses on the average treatment effect and does not address whether treatment benefits are widespread or limited to a select few. This problem affects many disease areas, since it stems from how randomized trials, often the gold standard for evaluating treatments, are designed and analyzed. Our goal is to learn about the fraction who benefit from a new treatment using randomized trial data. We consider the case where the outcome is ordinal, with binary outcomes as a special case. In general, the fraction who benefit is non-identifiable, and the best that can be obtained are sharp lower and upper bounds. Our contributions include (i) proving the plug-in estimator of the bounds can be inconsistent if support restrictions are made on the joint distribution of the potential outcomes; (ii) developing the first consistent estimator for this case; and (iii) applying this estimator to a randomized trial of a medical treatment to determine whether the estimates can be informative. Our estimator is computed using linear programming, allowing fast implementation. R code is provided.
© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Keywords:  Non-identifiable parameter; Randomized trial; Treatment effect heterogeneity

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28025183      PMCID: PMC6075268          DOI: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxw049

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biostatistics        ISSN: 1465-4644            Impact factor:   5.899


  8 in total

1.  Enhanced precision in the analysis of randomized trials with ordinal outcomes.

Authors:  Iván Díaz; Elizabeth Colantuoni; Michael Rosenblum
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2015-11-17       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Analysis of randomized comparative clinical trial data for personalized treatment selections.

Authors:  Tianxi Cai; Lu Tian; Peggy H Wong; L J Wei
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2010-09-28       Impact factor: 5.899

Review 3.  Reliability of the modified Rankin Scale: a systematic review.

Authors:  Terence J Quinn; Jesse Dawson; Matthew R Walters; Kennedy R Lees
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2009-08-13       Impact factor: 7.914

4.  Assessing the heterogeneity of treatment effects via potential outcomes of individual patients.

Authors:  Zhiwei Zhang; Chenguang Wang; Lei Nie; Guoxing Soon
Journal:  J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 1.864

5.  Minimally invasive surgery plus recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator for intracerebral hemorrhage evacuation decreases perihematomal edema.

Authors:  W Andrew Mould; J Ricardo Carhuapoma; John Muschelli; Karen Lane; Timothy C Morgan; Nichol A McBee; Amanda J Bistran-Hall; Natalie L Ullman; Paul Vespa; Neil A Martin; Issam Awad; Mario Zuccarello; Daniel F Hanley
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2013-02-07       Impact factor: 7.914

6.  Preliminary findings of the minimally-invasive surgery plus rtPA for intracerebral hemorrhage evacuation (MISTIE) clinical trial.

Authors:  T Morgan; M Zuccarello; R Narayan; P Keyl; K Lane; D Hanley
Journal:  Acta Neurochir Suppl       Date:  2008

7.  Influence of stroke infarct location on functional outcome measured by the modified rankin scale.

Authors:  Bastian Cheng; Nils Daniel Forkert; Melissa Zavaglia; Claus C Hilgetag; Amir Golsari; Susanne Siemonsen; Jens Fiehler; Salvador Pedraza; Josep Puig; Tae-Hee Cho; Josef Alawneh; Jean-Claude Baron; Leif Ostergaard; Christian Gerloff; Götz Thomalla
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2014-04-29       Impact factor: 7.914

8.  Safety and efficacy of minimally invasive surgery plus alteplase in intracerebral haemorrhage evacuation (MISTIE): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 2 trial.

Authors:  Daniel F Hanley; Richard E Thompson; John Muschelli; Michael Rosenblum; Nichol McBee; Karen Lane; Amanda J Bistran-Hall; Steven W Mayo; Penelope Keyl; Dheeraj Gandhi; Tim C Morgan; Natalie Ullman; W Andrew Mould; J Ricardo Carhuapoma; Carlos Kase; Wendy Ziai; Carol B Thompson; Gayane Yenokyan; Emily Huang; William C Broaddus; R Scott Graham; E Francois Aldrich; Robert Dodd; Cristanne Wijman; Jean-Louis Caron; Judy Huang; Paul Camarata; A David Mendelow; Barbara Gregson; Scott Janis; Paul Vespa; Neil Martin; Issam Awad; Mario Zuccarello
Journal:  Lancet Neurol       Date:  2016-10-11       Impact factor: 44.182

  8 in total
  3 in total

1.  Constructing a confidence interval for the fraction who benefit from treatment, using randomized trial data.

Authors:  Emily J Huang; Ethan X Fang; Daniel F Hanley; Michael Rosenblum
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2019-09-02       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Individual results may vary: Inequality-probability bounds for some health-outcome treatment effects.

Authors:  John Mullahy
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2018-07-04       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  Causal estimands and confidence intervals associated with Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests in randomized experiments.

Authors:  Michael P Fay; Erica H Brittain; Joanna H Shih; Dean A Follmann; Erin E Gabriel
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2018-05-17       Impact factor: 2.373

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.