Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20423924›Full record

ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2010

A tutorial on principal stratification-based sensitivity analysis: application to smoking cessation studies.

Brian L Egleston, Karen L Cropsey, Amy B Lazev, Carolyn J Heckman

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Response to Pearl's comments on principal stratification.The international journal of biostatistics · 2011
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Brian L EglestonFox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Brian.Egleston@fccc.edu
Karen L Cropsey
Amy B Lazev
Carolyn J Heckman
Fox Chase Cancer Center · USRutgers Cancer Institute of New JerseyUniversity of Alabama · US

Funding

WORD PROCESSING CENTER--COREP30CA006927 · NCI · RESEARCH INST OF FOX CHASE CAN CTR · PI Margaret von Mehren · 1985 to 2026
$138.8M
Smoking Research With Incarcerated FemalesK23DA015774 · NIDA · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI CROPSEY, KAREN L · 2002 to 2006
$632k
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA006927NCI NIH HHS P30 CA 06927NIDA NIH HHS K23 DA015774NIDA NIH HHS K23DA15774
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOne problem with assessing effects of smoking cessation interventions on withdrawal symptoms is that symptoms are affected by whether participants abstain from smoking during trials. Those who enter a randomized trial but do not change smoking behavior might not experience withdrawal-related symptoms. PURPOSE: We present a tutorial of how one can use a principal stratification sensitivity analysis to account for abstinence in the estimation of smoking cessation intervention effects. The article is intended to introduce researchers to principal stratification and describe how they might implement the methods.

methodsWe provide a hypothetical example that demonstrates why estimating effects within observed abstention groups is problematic. We demonstrate how estimation of effects within groups defined by potential abstention that an individual would have in either arm of a study can provide meaningful inferences. We describe a sensitivity analysis method to estimate such effects, and use it to investigate effects of a combined behavioral and nicotine replacement therapy intervention on withdrawal symptoms in a female prisoner population.

resultsOverall, the intervention was found to reduce withdrawal symptoms but the effect was not statistically significant in the group that was observed to abstain. More importantly, the intervention was found to be highly effective in the group that would abstain regardless of intervention assignment. The effectiveness of the intervention in other potential abstinence strata depends on the sensitivity analysis assumptions. LIMITATIONS: We make assumptions to narrow the range of our sensitivity analysis estimates. While appropriate in this situation, such assumptions might not be plausible in all situations.

conclusionsA principal stratification sensitivity analysis provides a meaningful method of accounting for abstinence effects in the evaluation of smoking cessation interventions on withdrawal symptoms. Smoking researchers have previously recommended analyses in subgroups defined by observed abstention status in the evaluation of smoking cessation interventions. We believe that principal stratification analyses should replace such analyses as the preferred means of accounting for post-randomization abstinence effects in the evaluation of smoking cessation programs. Clinical Trials 2010; 7: 286-298. http://ctj.sagepub.com.

Indexed as

Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicSmoking CessationSubstance Withdrawal SyndromeAdultAlgorithmsFemaleHumansPrisonersSensitivity and SpecificityYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID20423924
PMCPMC2874094
OpenAlexW2105309689

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.