More powerful randomization‐based p‐values in double‐blind trials with non‐compliance

Donald B Rubin
1998-02-15
Abstract:Standard randomization‐based tests of sharp null hypotheses in randomized clinical trials, that is, intent‐to‐treat analyses, are valid without extraneous assumptions, but generally can be appropriately powerful only with alternative hypotheses that involve treatment assignment having an effect on outcome. In the context of clinical trials with non‐compliance, other alternative hypotheses can be more natural. In particular, when a trial is double‐blind, it is often reasonable for the alternative hypothesis to exclude any effect of treatment assignment on outcome for a unit unless the assignment affected which treatment that unit actually received. Bayesian analysis under this alternative ‘exclusion’ hypothesis leads to new estimates of the effect of receipt of treatment, and to a new randomization‐based procedure that has frequentist validity yet can be substantially more powerful than the standard intent‐to‐treat procedure …
What problem does this paper attempt to address?