ArticleBiostatistics (Oxford, England)2025
Instrumental variable approach to estimating individual causal effects in N-of-1 trials: application to ISTOP study.
Article in Biostatistics (Oxford, England), 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
An N-of-1 trial is a multiple crossover trial conducted in a single individual to provide evidence to directly inform personalized treatment decisions. Advances in wearable devices greatly improved the feasibility of adopting these trials to identify optimal individual treatment plans, particularly when treatments differ among individuals and responses are highly heterogeneous. Our work was motivated by the I-STOP-AFib Study, which examined the impact of different triggers on atrial fibrillation (AF) occurrence. We described a causal framework for "N-of-1" trial using potential treatment selection paths and potential outcome paths. Two estimands of individual causal effect were defined: (i) the effect of continuous exposure, and (ii) the effect of an individual's observed behavior. We addressed three challenges: (i) imperfect compliance to the randomized treatment assignment; (ii) binary treatments and binary outcomes, which led to the "non-collapsibility" issue of estimating odds ratios; and (iii) serial correlation in the longitudinal observations. We adopted the Bayesian IV approach where the study randomization was the instrumental variable (IV) as it impacted the patient's choice of exposure but not directly the outcome. Estimations were obtained through a system of two parametric Bayesian models to estimate the individual causal effect. Our model got around the non-collapsibility and non-consistency by modeling the confounding mechanism through latent structural models and by inferring with Bayesian posterior of functionals. Autocorrelation present in the repeated measurements was also accounted for. The simulation study showed our method largely reduced bias and greatly improved the coverage of the estimated causal effect, compared to existing methods (ITT, PP, and AT). We applied the method to I-STOP-AFib Study to estimate the individual effect of alcohol on AF occurrence.
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.