Abstract:This working paper is hosted by The Berkeley Electronic Press (bepress) and may not be commercially reproduced without the permission of the copyright holder. Summary. Randomized clinical trials are a powerful tool for investigating causal treatment effects, but in human trials there are oftentimes problems of noncompliance which standard analyses, such as the intention-to-treat or as-treated analysis, either ignore or incorporate in such a way that the resulting estimand is no longer a causal effect. One alternative to these analyses is the complier average causal effect (CACE) which estimates the average causal treatment effect among a subpopulation that would comply under any treatment assigned. We focus on the setting of a randomized clinical trial with crossover treatment noncompliance (e.g., control subjects could receive the intervention and intervention subjects could receive the control) and outcome nonresponse. In this article, we develop estimators for the CACE using multiple imputation methods, which have been successfully applied to a wide variety of missing data problems, but have not yet been applied to the potential outcomes setting of causal inference. Using simulated data we investigate the finite sample properties of these estimators as well as of competing procedures in a simple setting. Finally we illustrate our methods using a real randomized encouragement design study on the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine. 1. Introduction The focus of empirical studies in medicine is often to estimate the causal effect of treatments, where randomized clinical trials are considered the most acceptable tool for investigating these causal relationships. But in trials involving human subjects there are oftentimes problems of patient noncompliance, where the patient does not adhere to the treatment assigned. In addition, there is also the problem of nonignorable missing data, where the missing-data mechanism may depend on unobserved data. Standard methods and analyses either ignore these complications, which can lead to biased estimates of causal treatment effect, or account for them in such a way that the resulting estimand can no longer be considered a causal effect of treatment. A statistical framework for causal inference that deals with the issue of noncompliance is based on potential outcomes and was first introduced by Neyman (1923) for randomized studies and later developed by Rubin (1974, 1978) for nonrandomized studies and other forms of inference. Rubin's approach, sometimes referred to as the Ru-bin Causal Model (Holland, 1986), provides a framework for defining the parameters of interest and correctly attributing the …

More Powerful Randomization-Basedp-values in Double-Blind Trials with Non-Compliance

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

More Powerful Multiple Testing in Randomized Experiments with Non-Compliance

High-Dimensional Randomized Crossover Studies: A Clarification of P-Values Interpretation

Dealing with Noncompliance and Missing Outcomes in a Randomized Trial Using Bayesian Technology: Prevention of Perinatal Sepsis Clinical Trial, Soweto, South Africa

Bayesian Inference for Causal Effects in Randomized Experiments with Noncompliance

Series 2-19-2009 Multiple Imputation Methods for Treatment Noncompliance and Nonresponse in Randomized Clinical Trials

BASIC: A Bayesian Adaptive Synthetic-Control Design for Phase II Clinical Trials.

Exploring Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials When Some of the Patients are Treated against the Randomization

Valid Randomization‐based P‐values for Partially Post Hoc Subgroup Analyses

Improving the Power of the Randomization Test

Assumptions when Analyzing Randomized Experiments with Noncompliance and Missing Outcomes

Towards Treatment Effect Interpretability: A Bayesian Re-analysis of 194,129 Patient Outcomes Across 230 Oncology Trials

Randomized p-values for multiple testing and their application in replicability analysis

Theory on Covariate-Adaptive Randomized Clinical Trials: Efficiency, Selection bias and Randomization Methods

Estimation of ascertainment bias and its effect on power in clinical trials with time-to-event outcomes

Towards More Flexible False Positive Control in Phase III Randomized Clinical Trials

Model-based optimal randomization procedure for treatment–covariate interaction tests

Multiple testing of composite null hypotheses for discrete data using randomized $p$-values

Robust Blocked Response-Adaptive Randomization Designs