Dataset Information

Randomization inference with general interference and censoring.

ABSTRACT: Interference occurs between individuals when the treatment (or exposure) of one individual affects the outcome of another individual. Previous work on causal inference methods in the presence of interference has focused on the setting where it is a priori assumed that there is "partial interference," in the sense that individuals can be partitioned into groups wherein there is no interference between individuals in different groups. Bowers et al. (2012, Political Anal, 21, 97-124) and Bowers et al. (2016, Political Anal, 24, 395-403) consider randomization-based inferential methods that allow for more general interference structures in the context of randomized experiments. In this paper, extensions of Bowers et al. that allow for failure time outcomes subject to right censoring are proposed. Permitting right-censored outcomes is challenging because standard randomization-based tests of the null hypothesis of no treatment effect assume that whether an individual is censored does not depend on treatment. The proposed extension of Bowers et al. to allow for censoring entails adapting the method of Wang et al. (2010, Biostatistics, 11, 676-692) for two-sample survival comparisons in the presence of unequal censoring. The methods are examined via simulation studies and utilized to assess the effects of cholera vaccination in an individually randomized trial of 73?000 children and women in Matlab, Bangladesh.

SUBMITTER: Loh WW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7004887 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Randomization inference with general interference and censoring.

Loh Wen Wei WW Hudgens Michael G MG Clemens John D JD Ali Mohammad M Emch Michael E ME

Biometrics 20191015 1

Interference occurs between individuals when the treatment (or exposure) of one individual affects the outcome of another individual. Previous work on causal inference methods in the presence of interference has focused on the setting where it is a priori assumed that there is "partial interference," in the sense that individuals can be partitioned into groups wherein there is no interference between individuals in different groups. Bowers et al. (2012, Political Anal, 21, 97-124) and Bowers et ...[more]

PMID: 31388990

Similar Datasets

Project description:This paper studies inference for the average treatment effect in randomized controlled trials with covariate-adaptive randomization. Here, by covariate-adaptive randomization, we mean randomization schemes that first stratify according to baseline covariates and then assign treatment status so as to achieve "balance" within each stratum. Our main requirement is that the randomization scheme assigns treatment status within each stratum so that the fraction of units being assigned to treatment within each stratum has a well behaved distribution centered around a proportion ? as the sample size tends to infinity. Such schemes include, for example, Efron's biased-coin design and stratified block randomization. When testing the null hypothesis that the average treatment effect equals a pre-specified value in such settings, we first show the usual two-sample t-test is conservative in the sense that it has limiting rejection probability under the null hypothesis no greater than and typically strictly less than the nominal level. We show, however, that a simple adjustment to the usual standard error of the two-sample t-test leads to a test that is exact in the sense that its limiting rejection probability under the null hypothesis equals the nominal level. Next, we consider the usual t-test (on the coefficient on treatment assignment) in a linear regression of outcomes on treatment assignment and indicators for each of the strata. We show that this test is exact for the important special case of randomization schemes with ?=12 , but is otherwise conservative. We again provide a simple adjustment to the standard errors that yields an exact test more generally. Finally, we study the behavior of a modified version of a permutation test, which we refer to as the covariate-adaptive permutation test, that only permutes treatment status for units within the same stratum. When applied to the usual two-sample t-statistic, we show that this test is exact for randomization schemes with ?=12 and that additionally achieve what we refer to as "strong balance." For randomization schemes with ??12 , this test may have limiting rejection probability under the null hypothesis strictly greater than the nominal level. When applied to a suitably adjusted version of the two-sample t-statistic, however, we show that this test is exact for all randomization schemes that achieve "strong balance," including those with ??12 . A simulation study confirms the practical relevance of our theoretical results. We conclude with recommendations for empirical practice and an empirical illustration·.

Project description:Treatment switching often has a crucial impact on estimates of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new oncology treatments. Rank preserving structural failure time models (RPSFTM) and two-stage estimation (TSE) methods estimate 'counterfactual' (i.e. had there been no switching) survival times and incorporate re-censoring to guard against informative censoring in the counterfactual dataset. However, re-censoring causes a loss of longer term survival information which is problematic when estimates of long-term survival effects are required, as is often the case for health technology assessment decision making. We present a simulation study designed to investigate applications of the RPSFTM and TSE with and without re-censoring, to determine whether re-censoring should always be recommended within adjustment analyses. We investigate a context where switching is from the control group onto the experimental treatment in scenarios with varying switch proportions, treatment effect sizes, treatment effect changes over time, survival function shapes, disease severity and switcher prognosis. Methods were assessed according to their estimation of control group restricted mean survival that would be observed in the absence of switching, up to the end of trial follow-up. We found that analyses which re-censored usually produced negative bias (i.e. underestimating control group restricted mean survival and overestimating the treatment effect), whereas analyses that did not re-censor consistently produced positive bias which was often smaller in magnitude than the bias associated with re-censored analyses, particularly when the treatment effect was high and the switching proportion was low. The RPSFTM with re-censoring generally resulted in increased bias compared to the other methods. We believe that analyses should be conducted with and without re-censoring, as this may provide decision-makers with useful information on where the true treatment effect is likely to lie. Incorporating re-censoring should not always represent the default approach when the objective is to estimate long-term survival times and treatment effects.

Dataset Information

Randomization inference with general interference and censoring.

Publications

Randomization inference with general interference and censoring.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets