The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Addressing complications of intention-to-treat analysis in the combined presence of all-or-none treatment-noncompliance and subsequent missing outcomes
Abstract
We study the combined impact that all-or-none compliance and subsequent missing outcomes can have on the estimation of the intention-to-treat effect of assignment in randomised studies. In this setting, a standard analysis, which drops subjects with missing outcomes and ignores compliance information, can be biased for the intention-to-treat effect. To address all-or-none compliance that is followed by missing outcomes, we construct a new estimation procedure for the intention-to-treat effect that maintains good randomisation-based properties under more plausible, nonignorable noncompliance and nonignorable missing-outcome conditions: the 'compound exclusion restriction' on the effect of assignment and the 'latent ignorability' of the missing data mechanism. We present both theoretical results and a simulation study. Moreover, we show how the two key concepts of compound exclusion and latent ignorability are relevant in more complicated settings, such as right censoring of a time-to-event outcome.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies
Rubin, D. B. (1974) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0037350 · Cited by 9,436
Statistics and Causal Inference
Holland, P. W. (1986) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1986.10478354 · Cited by 5,293
Cited by
(2009) · Cited by 2,013
Intention-to-treat concept: A review
Gupta, S. (2011) · Perspectives in Clinical Research · doi:10.4103/2229-3485.83221 · Cited by 1,921
Little, R. J., & Rubin, D. B. (2000) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.21.1.121 · Cited by 721
Experimental Designs for Identifying Causal Mechanisms
Imai, K., Tingley, D., & Yamamoto, T. (2013) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society · doi:10.1111/j.1467-985x.2012.01032.x · Cited by 408
Handling drop‐out in longitudinal studies
Hogan, J. W., Roy, J., & Korkontzelou, C. (2004) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1728 · Cited by 404
Metadata
- Authors
- Frangakis, C.
- Venue
- Biometrika
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1999-06-01
- Volume
- 86
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 365-379
- ISSN
- 0006-3444 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-3510
- OpenAlex
- W2105588574
- Cited by
- 387
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 11.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Addressing complications of intention-to-treat analysis in the combined presence of all-or-none treatment-noncompliance and subsequent missing outcomes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/biomet/86.2.365
- The paper
- Frangakis, C. (1999). Addressing complications of intention-to-treat analysis in the combined presence of all-or-none treatment-noncompliance and subsequent missing outcomes. Biometrika. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/86.2.365
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.