Causal inference methods for small non-randomized studies: Methods and an application in COVID-19

IF 2 3区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Sarah Friedrich, Tim Friede
{"title":"Causal inference methods for small non-randomized studies: Methods and an application in COVID-19","authors":"Sarah Friedrich,&nbsp;Tim Friede","doi":"10.1016/j.cct.2020.106213","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The usual development cycles are too slow for the development of vaccines, diagnostics and treatments in pandemics such as the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Given the pressure in such a situation, there is a risk that findings of early clinical trials are overinterpreted despite their limitations in terms of size and design. Motivated by a non-randomized open-label study investigating the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with COVID-19, we describe in a unified fashion various alternative approaches to the analysis of non-randomized studies. A widely used tool to reduce the impact of treatment-selection bias are so-called propensity score (PS) methods. Conditioning on the propensity score allows one to replicate the design of a randomized controlled trial, conditional on observed covariates. Extensions include the g-computation approach, which is less frequently applied, in particular in clinical studies. Moreover, doubly robust estimators provide additional advantages. Here, we investigate the properties of propensity score based methods including three variations of doubly robust estimators in small sample settings, typical for early trials, in a simulation study. R code for the simulations is provided.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":10636,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary clinical trials","volume":"99 ","pages":"Article 106213"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.cct.2020.106213","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary clinical trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1551714420302913","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

The usual development cycles are too slow for the development of vaccines, diagnostics and treatments in pandemics such as the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Given the pressure in such a situation, there is a risk that findings of early clinical trials are overinterpreted despite their limitations in terms of size and design. Motivated by a non-randomized open-label study investigating the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with COVID-19, we describe in a unified fashion various alternative approaches to the analysis of non-randomized studies. A widely used tool to reduce the impact of treatment-selection bias are so-called propensity score (PS) methods. Conditioning on the propensity score allows one to replicate the design of a randomized controlled trial, conditional on observed covariates. Extensions include the g-computation approach, which is less frequently applied, in particular in clinical studies. Moreover, doubly robust estimators provide additional advantages. Here, we investigate the properties of propensity score based methods including three variations of doubly robust estimators in small sample settings, typical for early trials, in a simulation study. R code for the simulations is provided.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

小型非随机研究的因果推理方法:方法及其在COVID-19中的应用
通常的开发周期对于正在进行的SARS-CoV-2大流行等大流行的疫苗、诊断和治疗方法的开发来说太慢了。考虑到这种情况下的压力,尽管早期临床试验的结果在规模和设计方面存在局限性,但仍有被过度解释的风险。受一项调查羟氯喹对COVID-19患者疗效的非随机开放标签研究的启发,我们以统一的方式描述了分析非随机研究的各种替代方法。一个广泛使用的工具,以减少治疗选择偏倚的影响是所谓的倾向评分(PS)方法。在观察到的协变量的条件下,对倾向得分的调节允许人们重复随机对照试验的设计。扩展包括较少应用的g计算方法,特别是在临床研究中。此外,双鲁棒估计器提供了额外的优点。在这里,我们在模拟研究中研究了基于倾向得分的方法的性质,包括小样本设置中双鲁棒估计器的三种变体,这是早期试验的典型特征。提供了模拟的R代码。
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
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.50%
发文量
281
审稿时长
44 days
期刊介绍: Contemporary Clinical Trials is an international peer reviewed journal that publishes manuscripts pertaining to all aspects of clinical trials, including, but not limited to, design, conduct, analysis, regulation and ethics. Manuscripts submitted should appeal to a readership drawn from disciplines including medicine, biostatistics, epidemiology, computer science, management science, behavioural science, pharmaceutical science, and bioethics. Full-length papers and short communications not exceeding 1,500 words, as well as systemic reviews of clinical trials and methodologies will be published. Perspectives/commentaries on current issues and the impact of clinical trials on the practice of medicine and health policy are also welcome.
×
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