ArticleTrials2025
Estimating treatment effect in randomised controlled trials with continuous outcomes subject to non-compliance: a logistic regression-based multiple imputation approach.
Article in Trials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Non-compliance in randomised controlled trials poses a significant challenge to accurately estimate treatment effects. Traditional methods of analysis, such as intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses, are known to have limitations. The ITT analysis tends to underestimate the effect of treatment, while PP is prone to selection bias. The Complier Average Causal Effect (CACE) framework has been proposed to address the issue of non-compliance. In this paper, we propose a novel method that assumes the CACE framework based on logistic regression using multiple imputation technique to estimate the unknown compliance status, with a lemma that provides mathematical proof of identification. Its performance is compared with ITT, PP, instrumental variable method and latent class regression method. The performance of these five methods was evaluated via intensive simulations assuming varying compliance rates, sample sizes and effect sizes. Scenarios that account for selection bias are also considered. The simulation results demonstrate that our proposed method has smaller bias and mean squared error, with wider coverage and larger power, even in the presence of significant selection bias. The methods were also compared using data from the JOBS II randomised clinical trial on depression, where the non-compliance rate was 55%. The performance aligned with simulation results and demonstrated the good potential of LMI in estimating treatment effect in RCTs subject to non-compliance.
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.