ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2020
Adjusting for adherence in randomized trials when adherence is measured as a continuous variable: An application to the Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial.
Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- An Improved Pooled Logistic Regression Implementation.Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026Article
- Dietary Habits of Patients with Coronary Artery Disease: A Case-Control Study from Pakistan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinicians and patients may be more interested in per-protocol effect estimates than intention-to-treat effect estimates from randomized trials. However, per-protocol effect estimates may be biased due to insufficient adjustment for prognostic factors that predict adherence. Adjustment for this bias is possible when appropriate methods, such as inverse probability weighting, are used. But, when adherence is measured as a continuous variable, constructing these weights can be challenging.
methodsIn the placebo arm of the Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial, we estimated the 7-year cumulative incidence of coronary heart disease under 100% adherence and 0% adherence to placebo. We used dose-response discrete-hazards models with inverse probability weighting to adjust for pre- and post-randomization covariates. We considered several continuous distributions for constructing the inverse probability weights.
resultsThe risk difference estimate for 100% adherence compared with 0% adherence ranged from -7.7 to -6.1 percentage points without adjustment for baseline and post-baseline covariates, and ranged from -1.8 to 2.2 percentage points with adjustment using inverse probability weights, depending on the dose-response model and inverse probability weight distribution used.
conclusionsMethods which appropriately adjust for time-varying post-randomization variables can explain away much of the bias in the "effect" of adherence to placebo. When considering continuous adherence, investigators should consider several models as estimates may be sensitive to the model chosen.
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.