Literature DB >> 34564720

Estimating the Complier Average Causal Effect in a Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials With Binary Outcomes Accounting for Noncompliance: A Generalized Linear Latent and Mixed Model Approach.

Ting Zhou, Jincheng Zhou, James S Hodges, Lifeng Lin, Yong Chen, Stephen R Cole, Haitao Chu.   

Abstract

Noncompliance, a common problem in randomized clinical trials (RCTs), can bias estimation of the effect of treatment receipt using a standard intention-to-treat analysis. The complier average causal effect (CACE) measures the effect of an intervention in the latent subpopulation that would comply with their assigned treatment. Although several methods have been developed to estimate the CACE in analyzing a single RCT, methods for estimating the CACE in a meta-analysis of RCTs with noncompliance await further development. This article reviews the assumptions needed to estimate the CACE in a single RCT and proposes a frequentist alternative for estimating the CACE in a meta-analysis, using a generalized linear latent and mixed model with SAS software (SAS Institute, Inc.). The method accounts for between-study heterogeneity using random effects. We implement the methods and describe an illustrative example of a meta-analysis of 10 RCTs evaluating the effect of receiving epidural analgesia in labor on cesarean delivery, where noncompliance varies dramatically between studies. Simulation studies are used to evaluate the performance of the proposed method.
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  complier average causal effect; generalized linear latent and mixed model; meta-analysis; noncompliance; randomized clinical trials

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 34564720      PMCID: PMC8898011          DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwab238

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0002-9262            Impact factor:   5.363


  32 in total

1.  Investigating causes of heterogeneity in systematic reviews.

Authors:  P P Glasziou; S L Sanders
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2002-06-15       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity with sparse data: a generalized linear mixed model approach.

Authors:  Haitao Chu; Stephen R Cole
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2006-09-28       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Random Effects Models in a Meta-Analysis of the Accuracy of Two Diagnostic Tests Without a Gold Standard.

Authors:  Haitao Chu; Sining Chen; Thomas A Louis
Journal:  J Am Stat Assoc       Date:  2009-06-01       Impact factor: 5.033

4.  Adjusting for non-compliance and contamination in randomized clinical trials.

Authors:  J Cuzick; R Edwards; N Segnan
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1997-05-15       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Adjustment for compliance behavior in trials of epidural analgesia in labor using instrumental variable meta-analysis.

Authors:  Melanie Bannister-Tyrrell; Branko Miladinovic; Christine L Roberts; Jane B Ford
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2014-12-18       Impact factor: 6.437

6.  Estimation of treatment efficacy with complier average causal effects (CACE) in a randomized stepped wedge trial.

Authors:  Joshua S Gruber; Benjamin F Arnold; Fermin Reygadas; Alan E Hubbard; John M Colford
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2014-04-04       Impact factor: 4.897

7.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials.

Authors:  R DerSimonian; N Laird
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1986-09

8.  Mammographic screening trials for women aged under 50. A quality assessment and meta-analysis.

Authors:  P P Glasziou; A J Woodward; C M Mahon
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  1995-06-19       Impact factor: 7.738

9.  Intravenous fentanyl PCA during labour.

Authors:  E M Nikkola; U U Ekblad; P O Kero; J J Alihanka; M A Salonen
Journal:  Can J Anaesth       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 5.063

10.  Randomized trial of epidural versus intravenous analgesia during labor.

Authors:  S M Ramin; D R Gambling; M J Lucas; S K Sharma; J E Sidawi; K J Leveno
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 7.661

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.