Outcomes Truncated by Death in RCTs: A Simulation Study on the Survivor Average Causal Effect

IF 1.3 3区 生物学 Q4 MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY
Stefanie von Felten, Chiara Vanetta, Christoph M. Rüegger, Sven Wellmann, Leonhard Held
{"title":"Outcomes Truncated by Death in RCTs: A Simulation Study on the Survivor Average Causal Effect","authors":"Stefanie von Felten,&nbsp;Chiara Vanetta,&nbsp;Christoph M. Rüegger,&nbsp;Sven Wellmann,&nbsp;Leonhard Held","doi":"10.1002/bimj.70061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Continuous outcome measurements truncated by death present a challenge for the estimation of unbiased treatment effects in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). One way to deal with such situations is to estimate the survivor average causal effect (SACE), but this requires making nontestable assumptions. Motivated by an ongoing RCT in very preterm infants with intraventricular hemorrhage, we performed a simulation study to compare an SACE estimator with complete case analysis (CCA) and analysis after multiple imputation of missing outcomes. We set up nine scenarios combining positive, negative, and no treatment effect on the outcome (cognitive development) and on survival at 2 years of age. Treatment effect estimates from all methods were compared in terms of bias, mean squared error, and coverage with regard to two true treatment effects: the treatment effect on the outcome used in the simulation and the SACE, which was derived by simulation of both potential outcomes per patient. Despite targeting different estimands (principal stratum estimand, hypothetical estimand), the SACE-estimator and multiple imputation gave similar estimates of the treatment effect and efficiently reduced the bias compared to CCA. Also, both methods were relatively robust to omission of one covariate in the analysis, and thus violation of relevant assumptions. Although the SACE is not without controversy, we find it useful if mortality is inherent to the study population. Some degree of violation of the required assumptions is almost certain, but may be acceptable in practice.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55360,"journal":{"name":"Biometrical Journal","volume":"67 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biometrical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bimj.70061","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Continuous outcome measurements truncated by death present a challenge for the estimation of unbiased treatment effects in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). One way to deal with such situations is to estimate the survivor average causal effect (SACE), but this requires making nontestable assumptions. Motivated by an ongoing RCT in very preterm infants with intraventricular hemorrhage, we performed a simulation study to compare an SACE estimator with complete case analysis (CCA) and analysis after multiple imputation of missing outcomes. We set up nine scenarios combining positive, negative, and no treatment effect on the outcome (cognitive development) and on survival at 2 years of age. Treatment effect estimates from all methods were compared in terms of bias, mean squared error, and coverage with regard to two true treatment effects: the treatment effect on the outcome used in the simulation and the SACE, which was derived by simulation of both potential outcomes per patient. Despite targeting different estimands (principal stratum estimand, hypothetical estimand), the SACE-estimator and multiple imputation gave similar estimates of the treatment effect and efficiently reduced the bias compared to CCA. Also, both methods were relatively robust to omission of one covariate in the analysis, and thus violation of relevant assumptions. Although the SACE is not without controversy, we find it useful if mortality is inherent to the study population. Some degree of violation of the required assumptions is almost certain, but may be acceptable in practice.

随机对照试验中被死亡截断的结果:幸存者平均因果效应的模拟研究
被死亡截断的连续结局测量对随机对照试验(rct)中无偏治疗效果的估计提出了挑战。处理这种情况的一种方法是估计幸存者平均因果效应(SACE),但这需要做出不可检验的假设。在一项正在进行的针对极早产儿脑室内出血的随机对照试验的激励下,我们进行了一项模拟研究,将SACE估计值与完整病例分析(CCA)和多次缺失结果归因后的分析进行比较。我们设置了9个场景,包括对结果(认知发展)和2岁生存率的积极、消极和无治疗效果。对所有方法的治疗效果估计进行偏倚、均方误差和两种真实治疗效果的覆盖范围的比较:模拟中使用的治疗效果和SACE, SACE是通过模拟每个患者的两种潜在结果得出的。尽管针对不同的估计(主地层估计,假设估计),sace估计器和多重imputation给出了类似的处理效果估计,并有效地减少了与CCA相比的偏差。此外,这两种方法对于分析中遗漏一个协变量,从而违反相关假设都相对稳健。尽管SACE并非没有争议,但我们发现,如果死亡率是研究人群固有的,它是有用的。在一定程度上违反所要求的假设几乎是肯定的,但在实践中可能是可以接受的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Biometrical Journal
Biometrical Journal 生物-数学与计算生物学
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
5.90%
发文量
119
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Biometrical Journal publishes papers on statistical methods and their applications in life sciences including medicine, environmental sciences and agriculture. Methodological developments should be motivated by an interesting and relevant problem from these areas. Ideally the manuscript should include a description of the problem and a section detailing the application of the new methodology to the problem. Case studies, review articles and letters to the editors are also welcome. Papers containing only extensive mathematical theory are not suitable for publication in Biometrical Journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信