Cited by 111Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference

A Comparison of Methods for Estimating the Causal Effect of a Treatment in Randomized Clinical Trials Subject to Noncompliance

Open access
Little, Roderick J., Long, Qi, Lin, Xihong·2009·Biometrics

Abstract

Summary We consider the analysis of clinical trials that involve randomization to an active treatment (T = 1) or a control treatment (T = 0), when the active treatment is subject to all‐or‐nothing compliance. We compare three approaches to estimating treatment efficacy in this situation: as‐treated analysis, per‐protocol analysis, and instrumental variable (IV) estimation, where the treatment effect is estimated using the randomization indicator as an IV. Both model‐ and method‐of‐moment based IV estimators are considered. The assumptions underlying these estimators are assessed, standard errors and mean squared errors of the estimates are compared, and design implications of the three methods are examined. Extensions of the methods to include observed covariates are then discussed, emphasizing the role of compliance propensity methods and the contrasting role of covariates in these extensions. Methods are illustrated on data from the Women Take Pride study, an assessment of behavioral treatments for women with heart disease.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2008.01066.x

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The impact of non-adherence and contamination will be assessed using complier-average causal effect analysis and a per-protocol analysis, and Average Causal Response analysis will assess incremental impacts of the number of ACT sessions received.

    “The impact of non-adherence (i.e. non-uptake of ACT in the intervention group) and contamination (i.e. delivery of psychological therapy in the control group) will be assessed using complier-average causal effect analysis and a per-protocol analysis. Average Causal Response analysis will be used to assess any incremental impacts of the number of ACT sessions received [65].”

    From A randomised controlled trial of acceptance and commitment therapy plus usual care compared to usual care alone for improving psychological health in people with motor neuron disease (COMMEND): study protocol. (2022) · cites this paper as [65]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Little, R. J., Long, Q., & Lin, X.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Emory University (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Little, Roderick J.
  • Long, Qi
  • Lin, Xihong
Venue
Biometrics
Published
2009-05-28
Volume
65
Issue
2
Pages
640-649
ISSN
  • 0006-341X (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-0420
OpenAlex
W2144385713
Cited by
111
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 8
FWCI
5.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biometrics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Collection of Biostatistics Research Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (R01CA076404)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Keywords
treatment non-adherence, causal effect estimation, randomized controlled trials, as-treated analysis, per-protocol analysis, instrumental variable estimation
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Biometry, Computer Simulation, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Patient Compliance, Models, Statistical, Epidemiologic Research Design, Causality, Proportional Hazards Models, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

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