Dataset Information

Assessing Individual and Disseminated Effects in Network-Randomized Studies.

ABSTRACT: Implementation trials often involve clustering via risk networks, where only some participants directly receive the intervention. The individual effect is that among directly treated persons beyond being in an intervention network; the disseminated effect is that among persons engaged with those directly treated. In this article, we employ a causal inference framework and discuss assumptions and estimators for individual and disseminated effects and apply them to the HIV Prevention Trials Network 037 Study. HIV Prevention Trials Network 037 was a phase III, network-level, randomized controlled human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention trial conducted in the United States and Thailand from 2002 to 2006 that recruited injection drug users, who were assigned to either an intervention group or a control group, and their risk network members, who received no direct intervention. Combining individual and disseminated effects, we observed a 35% composite rate reduction in the adjusted model (risk ratio = 0.65, 95% confidence interval: 0.47, 0.90). Methodology is now available for estimating the full set of these effects, enhancing knowledge gained from network-randomized trials. Although the overall effect gains validity from network randomization, we show that it will generally be less than the composite effect. Additionally, if only index participants benefit from the intervention, as the network size increases, the overall effect tends toward the null-an unfortunate and misleading conclusion.

SUBMITTER: Buchanan AL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6211234 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessing Individual and Disseminated Effects in Network-Randomized Studies.

Buchanan Ashley L AL Vermund Sten H SH Friedman Samuel R SR Spiegelman Donna D

American journal of epidemiology 20181101 11

Implementation trials often involve clustering via risk networks, where only some participants directly receive the intervention. The individual effect is that among directly treated persons beyond being in an intervention network; the disseminated effect is that among persons engaged with those directly treated. In this article, we employ a causal inference framework and discuss assumptions and estimators for individual and disseminated effects and apply them to the HIV Prevention Trials Networ ...[more]

PMID: 30052722

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn non-randomized studies (NRSs) where a continuous outcome variable (e.g., depressive symptoms) is assessed at baseline and follow-up, it is common to observe imbalance of the baseline values between the treatment/exposure group and control group. This may bias the study and consequently a meta-analysis (MA) estimate. These estimates may differ across statistical methods used to deal with this issue. Analysis of individual participant data (IPD) allows standardization of methods across studies. We aimed to identify methods used in published IPD-MAs of NRSs for continuous outcomes, and to compare different methods to account for baseline values of outcome variables in IPD-MA of NRSs using two empirical examples from the Thyroid Studies Collaboration (TSC).MethodsFor the first aim we systematically searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane from inception to February 2021 to identify published IPD-MAs of NRSs that adjusted for baseline outcome measures in the analysis of continuous outcomes. For the second aim, we applied analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), change score, propensity score and the naïve approach (ignores the baseline outcome data) in IPD-MA from NRSs on the association between subclinical hyperthyroidism and depressive symptoms and renal function. We estimated the study and meta-analytic mean difference (MD) and relative standard error (SE). We used both fixed- and random-effects MA.ResultsTen of 18 (56%) of the included studies used the change score method, seven (39%) studies used ANCOVA and one the propensity score (5%). The study estimates were similar across the methods in studies in which groups were balanced at baseline with regard to outcome variables but differed in studies with baseline imbalance. In our empirical examples, ANCOVA and change score showed study results on the same direction, not the propensity score. In our applications, ANCOVA provided more precise estimates, both at study and meta-analytical level, in comparison to other methods. Heterogeneity was higher when change score was used as outcome, moderate for ANCOVA and null with the propensity score.ConclusionANCOVA provided the most precise estimates at both study and meta-analytic level and thus seems preferable in the meta-analysis of IPD from non-randomized studies. For the studies that were well-balanced between groups, change score, and ANCOVA performed similarly.

Dataset Information

Assessing Individual and Disseminated Effects in Network-Randomized Studies.

Publications

Assessing Individual and Disseminated Effects in Network-Randomized Studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets