The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
On estimating treatment effects under non‐compliance in randomized clinical trials: are intent‐to‐treat or instrumental variables analyses perfect solutions?
Abstract
In this report, we compared four estimators (intent‐to‐treat, as treated, per protocol, and instrumental variables estimators) that are conventionally considered for treatment effect estimation by simulation under different non‐compliance scenarios in typical clinical trial settings. We found that intent‐to‐treat and instrumental variables estimators are not perfect and can be problematic in some situations although these two estimators carry desirable properties as we assume. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Under conditions of nonadherence, traditional ITT analysis can result in a biased estimate of the treatment effect and an IV estimator can provide a complement.
“Under conditions of nonadherence, traditional ITT analysis can result in a biased estimate of the treatment effect and an IV estimator can provide a complement66.”
From Effect of long-term caloric restriction on DNA methylation measures of biological aging in healthy adults from the CALERIE trial (2023) · cites this paper as [66]
Citations
Cites
Identification of Causal Effects Using Instrumental Variables
Angrist, J. D., Imbens, G. W., & Rubin, D. B. (1996) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1996.10476902 · Cited by 4,230
Little, R. J., & Rubin, D. B. (2000) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.21.1.121 · Cited by 721 · cited 8×
“This is a reasonable assumption in most RCTs [1, 8].”
BackgroundInfluential
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- 10.1214/aoms/1177731868 · DOI
- 10.2307/1401917 · DOI
- 10.1002/sim.4780100110 · DOI
- 10.1214/aoms/1177704172 · DOI
- 10.2307/2291633 · DOI
- 10.1198/016214504000000025 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2005.040313.x · DOI
- Rosenbaum P, 1983, Assessing sensitivity to an unobserved binary covariate in an observational study with binary outcome, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 45, 212, 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1983.tb01242.x · DOI
- Fieller EC, 1954, Some problems in interval estimation, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 16, 175, 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1954.tb00159.x · DOI
- 10.1093/biostatistics/1.1.69 · DOI
- 10.1056/NEJM197905313002203 · DOI
- 10.2307/2291630 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2002.00021.x · DOI
- 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199607)5:4<297::AID-HEC216>3.0.CO;2-T · DOI
- 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2001.01002.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2004.00339.x · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Management of coronary disease in patients with advanced kidney disease
Bangalore, S., Maron, D. J., O’Brien, S. M., Fleg, J. L., Kretov, E. I., Briguori, C., Kaul, U., Reynolds, H. R., Mazurek, T., Sidhu, M. S., et al. (2020) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1915925 · Cited by 499
Waziry, R., Ryan, C. P., Corcoran, D. L., Huffman, K. M., Kobor, M. S., Kothari, M., Graf, G. H., Kraus, V. B., Kraus, W. E., Lin, D. T. S., et al. (2023) · Nature Aging · doi:10.1038/s43587-022-00357-y · Cited by 217
Little, R. J., Long, Q., & Lin, X. (2009) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.1541-0420.2008.01066.x · Cited by 111
Metadata
- Authors
- Bang, H., & Davis, C. E.
- Venue
- Statistics in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-08-10
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 954-964
- ISSN
- 0277-6715
- 1097-0258
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 2
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
