ArticleObservational studies2016
Patient Centered Hazard Ratio Estimation Using Principal Stratification Weights: Application to the NORCCAP Randomized Trial of Colorectal Cancer Screening.
Article in Observational studies, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Instrumental variable estimation of a hazard ratio for treatment with a waiting time without specifying its dependence on unmeasured confounders: application to a procedural registry.Lifetime data analysis · 2026Article
- Atrial fibrillation screening for stroke prevention: an instrumental variables meta-analysis addressing varying participation rates.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025Article
- Article
- Causal Proportional Hazards Estimation with a Binary Instrumental Variable.Statistica Sinica · 2021Article
- A causal proportional hazards estimator under homogeneous or heterogeneous selection in an IV setting.Lifetime data analysis · 2019Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In randomized trials, the most commonly reported method of effect estimation is intention-to-treat (ITT), and to a lesser extent the per-protocol. The ITT is preferred because it is an unbiased estimator of the effect of treatment assignment. However, if there is any non-adherence the ITT is a biased estimate of the treatment effect, defined as the contrast between the potential outcome if treated versus the potential outcome if not treated. The treatment effect is most relevant to patients. Principal stratification is a framework for estimating treatment effects that combines potential outcomes and latent adherence strata. It yields an unbiased estimator of the complier average causal effect (CACE) for a difference in means or proportions, in the setting of all-or-nothing adherence. This paper addresses estimation of the causal hazard ratio for the compliers in a setting of right censoring of a time-to-event. We propose a novel approach to operationalizing principal stratification using weights. We report the results of simulations that vary the amount of adherence and selection bias that show the hazard ratio estimators we propose have minimal bias compared to the ITT, and per-protocol estimators. We demonstrate the approach using a population based randomized controlled trial of colorectal cancer screening subject to a high frequency of nonadherence in the screening arm.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29644344PMC5891167W3021003774What 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.