Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userClarifying Selection Bias in Cluster Randomized Trials: Estimands and Estimation
120
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Georgia Papadogeorgou
Publication date
2021
fields
Mathematical Statistics
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
In cluster randomized trials, patients are recruited after clusters are randomized, and the recruiters and patients may not be blinded to the assignment. This often leads to differential recruitment and systematic differences in baseline characteristics of the recruited patients between intervention and control arms, inducing post-randomization selection bias. We aim to rigorously define causal estimands in the presence of selection bias. We elucidate the conditions under which standard covariate adjustment methods can validly estimate these estimands. We further discuss the additional data and assumptions necessary for estimating causal effects when such conditions are not met. Adopting the principal stratification framework in causal inference, we clarify there are two average treatment effect (ATE) estimands in cluster randomized trials: one for the overall population and one for the recruited population. We derive the analytical formula of the two estimands in terms of principal-stratum-specific causal effects. Further, using simulation studies, we assess the empirical performance of the multivariable regression adjustment method under different data generating processes leading to selection bias. When treatment effects are heterogeneous across principal strata, the ATE on the overall population generally differs from the ATE on the recruited population. A naive intention-to-treat analysis of the recruited sample leads to biased estimates of both ATEs. In the presence of post-randomization selection and without additional data on the non-recruited subjects, the ATE on the recruited population is estimable only when the treatment effects are homogenous between principal strata, and the ATE on the overall population is generally not estimable. The extent to which covariate adjustment can remove selection bias depends on the degree of effect heterogeneity across principal strata.
rate research
Read More
Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) are popular in public health and in the social sciences to evaluate a new treatment or policy where the new policy is randomly allocated to clusters of units rather than individual units. CRTs often feature both noncompliance, when individuals within a cluster are not exposed to the intervention, and individuals within a cluster may influence each other through treatment spillovers where those who comply with the new policy may affect the outcomes of those who do not. Here, we study the identification of causal effects in CRTs when both noncompliance and treatment spillovers are present. We prove that the standard analysis of CRT data with noncompliance using instrumental variables does not identify the usual complier average causal effect when treatment spillovers are present. We extend this result and show that no analysis of CRT data can unbiasedly estimate local network causal effects. Finally, we develop bounds for these causal effects under the assumption that the treatment is not harmful compared to the control. We demonstrate these results with an empirical study of a deworming intervention in Kenya.
The primary analysis of randomized screening trials for cancer typically adheres to the intention-to-screen principle, measuring cancer-specific mortality reductions between screening and control arms. These mortality reductions result from a combination of the screening regimen, screening technology and the effect of the early, screening-induced, treatment. This motivates addressing these different aspects separately. Here we are interested in the causal effect of early versus delayed treatments on cancer mortality among the screening-detectable subgroup, which under certain assumptions is estimable from conventional randomized screening trial using instrumental variable type methods. To define the causal effect of interest, we formulate a simplified structural multi-state model for screening trials, based on a hypothetical intervention trial where screening detected individuals would be randomized into early versus delayed treatments. The cancer-specific mortality reductions after screening detection are quantified by a cause-specific hazard ratio. For this, we propose two estimators, based on an estimating equation and a likelihood expression. The methods extend existing instrumental variable methods for time-to-event and competing risks outcomes to time-dependent intermediate variables. Using the multi-state model as the basis of a data generating mechanism, we investigate the performance of the new estimators through simulation studies. In addition, we illustrate the proposed method in the context of CT screening for lung cancer using the US National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) data.
Many policy evaluations occur in settings where treatment is randomized at the cluster level, and there is treatment noncompliance within each cluster. For example, villages might be assigned to treatment and control, but residents in each village may choose to comply or not with their assigned treatment status. When noncompliance is present, the instrumental variables framework can be used to identify and estimate causal effects. While a large literature exists on instrumental variables estimation methods, relatively little work has been focused on settings with clustered treatments. Here, we review extant methods for instrumental variable estimation in clustered designs and derive both the finite and asymptotic properties of these estimators. We prove that the properties of current estimators depend on unrealistic assumptions. We then develop a new IV estimation method for cluster randomized trials and study its formal properties. We prove that our IV estimator allows for possible treatment effect heterogeneity that is correlated with cluster size and is robust to low compliance rates within clusters. We evaluate these methods using simulations and apply them to data from a randomized intervention in India.
The estimand framework included in the addendum to the ICH E9 guideline facilitates discussions to ensure alignment between the key question of interest, the analysis, and interpretation. Therapeutic knowledge and drug mechanism play a crucial role in determining the strategy and defining the estimand for clinical trial designs. Clinical trials in patients with hematological malignancies often present unique challenges for trial design due to complexity of treatment options and existence of potential curative but highly risky procedures, e.g. stem cell transplant or treatment sequence across different phases (induction, consolidation, maintenance). Here, we illustrate how to apply the estimand framework in hematological clinical trials and how the estimand framework can address potential difficulties in trial result interpretation. This paper is a result of a cross-industry collaboration to connect the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) E9 addendum concepts to applications. Three randomized phase 3 trials will be used to consider common challenges including intercurrent events in hematologic oncology trials to illustrate different scientific questions and the consequences of the estimand choice for trial design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation. Template language for describing estimand in both study protocols and statistical analysis plans is suggested for statisticians reference.
Cluster randomized controlled trials (cRCTs) are designed to evaluate interventions delivered to groups of individuals. A practical limitation of such designs is that the number of available clusters may be small, resulting in an increased risk of baseline imbalance under simple randomization. Constrained randomization overcomes this issue by restricting the allocation to a subset of randomization schemes where sufficient overall covariate balance across comparison arms is achieved with respect to a pre-specified balance metric. However, several aspects of constrained randomization for the design and analysis of multi-arm cRCTs have not been fully investigated. Motivated by an ongoing multi-arm cRCT, we provide a comprehensive evaluation of the statistical properties of model-based and randomization-based tests under both simple and constrained randomization designs in multi-arm cRCTs, with varying combinations of design and analysis-based covariate adjustment strategies. In particular, as randomization-based tests have not been extensively studied in multi-arm cRCTs, we additionally develop most-powerful permutation tests under the linear mixed model framework for our comparisons. Our results indicate that under constrained randomization, both model-based and randomization-based analyses could gain power while preserving nominal type I error rate, given proper analysis-based adjustment for the baseline covariates. The choice of balance metrics and candidate set size and their implications on the testing of the pairwise and global hypotheses are also discussed. Finally, we caution against the design and analysis of multi-arm cRCTs with an extremely small number of clusters, due to insufficient degrees of freedom and the tendency to obtain an overly restricted randomization space.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
