ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025
Accounting for extent of non-compliance when estimating treatment effects on an ordinal outcome in randomized clinical trials.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. 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.
- Reducing unmeasured confounding from non-compliance with randomization in surgical RCTs: a simulation study.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with non-compliance, evaluating the causal effects of interventions would lead to a more precise estimation of treatment effect when the estimand of interest is the effect of treatment amongst compliers. While there is a large body of literature addressing the issue of non-compliance for continuous, binary, and time-to-event outcomes, this issue is seldom discussed for ordinal outcomes.
methodsIn this paper, we consider one-sided non-compliance. We introduce an extension of the inverse probability weighting (IPW) method for handling non-compliance involving an ordinal outcome by fully utilizing the information of non-compliance and defining it as a categorical variable to describe the extent of non-compliance. This is in contrast to the usual convention where compliance is regarded as a binary variable. We provide the identification and asymptotic distribution of the proposed method. We compare the proposed method (IPW_Dnew) with intention-to-treat (ITT), per protocol (PP), instrumental variable (IV), and IPW method via a simulation study and real-life data from the JOBS II intervention trial and the IMMACULATE trial.
resultsSimulation results demonstrate that the proposed method performs better than other methods in terms of bias, coverage, mean squared error, power and Type I error under various scenarios, particularly in situations with selection bias and partial compliance. In the empirical study, a substantial estimate of partial compliance by IPW_Dnew implies that there may be a partial compliance effect.
conclusionFor ordinal outcome in the presence of non-compliance, we suggest using the proposed method to estimate the causal effect of treatment amongst compliers and partial compliers, especially when there exists selection bias.
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.