ArticleStatistics in medicine2017
A synthetic estimator for the efficacy of clinical trials with all-or-nothing compliance.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Providing Health Physicals and/or Health Monitoring Services in Mental Health Clinics: Impact on Laboratory Screening and Monitoring for High Risk Populations.Administration and policy in mental health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A critical issue in the analysis of clinical trials is patients' noncompliance to assigned treatments. In the context of a binary treatment with all or nothing compliance, the intent-to-treat analysis is a straightforward approach to estimating the effectiveness of the trial. In contrast, there exist 3 commonly used estimators with varying statistical properties for the efficacy of the trial, formally known as the complier-average causal effect. The instrumental variable estimator may be unbiased but can be extremely variable in many settings. The as treated and per protocol estimators are usually more efficient than the instrumental variable estimator, but they may suffer from selection bias. We propose a synthetic approach that incorporates all 3 estimators in a data-driven manner. The synthetic estimator is a linear convex combination of the instrumental variable, per protocol, and as treated estimators, resembling the popular model-averaging approach in the statistical literature. However, our synthetic approach is nonparametric; thus, it is applicable to a variety of outcome types without specific distributional assumptions. We also discuss the construction of the synthetic estimator using an analytic form derived from a simple normal mixture distribution. We apply the synthetic approach to a clinical trial for post-traumatic stress disorder.
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.