Randomized trials for the real world: making as few and as reasonable assumptions as possible

Abstract

The strength of the randomized trial to yield conclusions not dependent on assumptions applies only in an ideal setting. In the real world various complications such as loss-to-follow-up, missing outcomes, noncompliance and nonrandom selection into a trial force a reliance on assumptions. To handle real world complications, it is desirable to make as few and as reasonable assumptions as possible. This article reviews four techniques for using a few reasonable assumptions to design or analyse randomized trials in the presence of specific real world complications: 1) a double sampling design for survival data to avoid strong assumptions about informative censoring, 2) sensitivity analysis for partially missing binary outcomes that uses the randomization to reduce the number of parameters specified by the investigator, 3) an estimate of the effect of treatment received in the presence of all-or-none compliance that requires reasonable assumptions, and 4) statistics for binary outcomes that avoid some assumptions for generalizing results to a target population.

References

Rubin DB Causal inference using potential outcomes: design, modeling, decisions. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2005; 100: 322-31.

Berger VW , Weinstein S. Ensuring the comparability of comparison groups: is randomization enough? Controlled Clinical Trials 2004; 25: 515-24.

Tsiatis AA A nonidentifiability aspect of the problem of competing risks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 1975; 72: 20-2.

Baker SG , Wax Y. , Patterson BH Regression analysis of grouped survival data: informative censoring and double sampling. Biometrics 1993; 49: 379-89.

Frangakis CE , Rubin DB Addressing an idiosyncrasy in estimating survival curves using double sampling in the presence of self-selected right censoring . Biometrics 2001; 57: 333-42.

Robins J. , Rotnitzky A. , and Bonetti M. Discussion of the Frangakis and Rubin article. Biometrics 2001; 342-47.

Baker SG Discussion of doubling sampling with survival analysis. Biometrics 2001; 57: 348-50.

Little RJ , Rubin DB Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. John Wiley and Sons, NewYork, 1987.

Hollis S. A graphical sensitivity analysis for clinical trials with non-ignorable missing binary outcome. Statistics in Medicine 2002 ; 21: 3823-34.

10.

Baker SG , Freedman LS A simple method for analyzing data from a randomized trial with a missing binary outcome. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2003; 3: 8.

11.

Bloom HS Accounting for no-shows in experimental evaluation designs. Evaluation Review 1984; 8: 225-46.

12.

Baker SG , Lindeman KS The paired availability design: A proposal for evaluating epidural analgesia during labor. Statistics in Medicine 1994; 13: 2269-78, correction Statistics in Medicine 1995; 14: 1841.

13.

Angrist JD , Imbens GW , Rubin DB Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1996; 92: 444-55.

14.

Frangakis CE , Rubin DB Principle stratificaiton in causal inference . Biometrics 59: 21-9.

15.

Baker SG , Kramer BS Simple maximum likelihood estimates of efficacy in randomized trials and before-and-after studies, with implications for meta-analysis. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 2005; 14: 1-19. Correction (vol. 14, pg. 349, 2005).

16.

Gail MH , Wieand S. , and Piantadosi S. Biased estimates of treatment effect in randomized experiments with nonlinear regressions and omitted covariates. Biometrika 1984; 71: 431-44.

17.

Baker SG , Kramer BS Randomized trials, generalizability, and meta-analysis: Graphical insights for binary outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2003; 3: 10.