ArticleBMJ open2014
Estimating treatment effects in randomised controlled trials with non-compliance: a simulation study.
Article in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
30 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review of simulation studies which compare existing statistical methods to account for non-compliance in randomised controlled trials.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Pooled it
- Statistical methods for non-adherence in non-inferiority trials: useful and used? A systematic review.BMJ open · 2022Pooled it
- Systematic review of statistical methods for safety data in malaria chemoprevention in pregnancy trials.Malaria journal · 2020Pooled it
- Handling missing data in propensity score estimation in comparative effectiveness evaluations: a systematic review.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2018Pooled it
- Trial
- The impact of cash incentives on mental health among adults initiating antiretroviral therapy in Tanzania.AIDS care · 2024Trial
- Tonsillectomy compared with conservative management in patients over 16 years with recurrent sore throat: the NATTINA RCT and economic evaluation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2023Trial
- Adjunctive Medication Management and Contingency Management to enhance adherence to acamprosate for alcohol dependence: the ADAM trial RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2023Trial
- Estimation of treatment effect in presence of noncompliance and competing risks: a simulation study.Scientific reports · 2023Trial
- Factors associated with caregiver compliance to an HIV disclosure intervention and its effect on HIV and mental health outcomes among children living with HIV:Frontiers in public health · 2023Trial
- CABANA trial: "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2020Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Article
- Effect of Comprehensive Educational Program on Preeclamptic Women's Risk Perception of Cardiovascular Disease, Self-Efficacy, and Adherence to Healthy Lifestyle Behaviors.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- Analysis approaches to address treatment nonadherence in pragmatic trials with point-treatment settings: a simulation study.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Article
- Protocol and statistical analysis plan for the phase 3 randomised controlled Treatment of Invasively Ventilated Adults with Early Activity and Mobilisation (TEAM III) trial.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2021Article
- A Bayesian Hierarchical CACE Model Accounting for Incomplete Noncompliance With Application to a Meta-analysis of Epidural Analgesia on Cesarean Section.Journal of the American Statistical Association · 2021Article
- Effectiveness of a school-based intervention on knowledge, attitude and practice on healthy lifestyle and body composition in Malaysian adolescents.BMC pediatrics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) are often considered as the gold standard for assessing new health interventions. Patients are randomly assigned to receive an intervention or control. The effect of the intervention can be estimated by comparing outcomes between groups, whose prognostic factors are expected to balance by randomisation. However, patients' non-compliance with their assigned treatment will undermine randomisation and potentially bias the estimate of treatment effect. Through simulation, we aim to compare common approaches in analysing non-compliant data under different non-compliant scenarios. SETTINGS: Based on a real study, we simulated hypothetical trials by varying three non-compliant factors: the type, randomness and degree of non-compliance. We compared the intention-to-treat (ITT), as-treated (AT), per-protocol (PP), instrumental variable (IV) and complier average casual effect (CACE) analyses to estimate large (50% improvement over the control), moderate (25% improvement) and null (same as the control) treatment effects. Different approaches were compared by the bias of estimate, mean square error (MSE) and 95% coverage of the true value.
resultsFor a large or moderate treatment effect, the ITT estimate was considerably biased in all scenarios. The AT, PP, IV and CACE estimates were unbiased when non-compliant behaviours were random. The IV estimate was unbiased when non-compliant behaviours were symmetrically dependent on patients' conditions. The PP estimate was mostly unbiased when patients in the control group did not have access to the intervention. When the intervention was not different from the control, the ITT was less biased than the other approaches. Similar results were found when comparing the MSE and 95% coverage.
conclusionsThe standard ITT analysis under non-compliance is biased when the intervention has a moderate or large effect. Alternative analyses can provide unbiased or less biased estimates. Based on the results, we make some suggestions on choosing optimal approaches for analysing specific non-compliant scenarios.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.