↓ Skip to main content

Simple Estimation of Patient-Oriented Effects From Randomized Trials: An Open and Shut CACE

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Epidemiology, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Simple Estimation of Patient-Oriented Effects From Randomized Trials: An Open and Shut CACE
Published in
American Journal of Epidemiology, August 2015
DOI 10.1093/aje/kwv065
Pubmed ID
Authors

Russell J. Steele, Ian Shrier, Jay S. Kaufman, Robert W. Platt

Abstract

In randomized controlled trials, the intention-to-treat estimator provides an unbiased estimate of the causal effect of treatment assignment on the outcome. However, patients often want to know what the effect would be if they were to take the treatment as prescribed (the patient-oriented effect), and several researchers have suggested that the more relevant causal effect for this question is the complier average causal effect (CACE), also referred to as the local average treatment effect. Sophisticated approaches to estimating the CACE include Bayesian and frequentist methods for principal stratification, inverse-probability-of-treatment-weighted estimators, and instrumental-variable (IV) analysis. All of these approaches exploit information about adherence to assigned treatment to improve upon the intention-to-treat estimator, but they are rarely used in practice, probably because of their complexity. The IV principal stratification estimator is simple to implement but has had limited use in practice, possibly due to lack of familiarity. Here, we show that the IV principal stratification estimator is a modified per-protocol estimator that should be obtainable from any randomized controlled trial, and we provide a closed form for its robust variance (and its uncertainty). Finally, we illustrate sensitivity analyses we conducted to assess inference in light of potential violations of the exclusion restriction assumption.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 21%
Other 4 17%
Researcher 3 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 8%
Professor 2 8%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 46%
Mathematics 2 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 4%
Psychology 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 5 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 November 2019.
All research outputs
#13,953,851
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Epidemiology
#7,763
of 9,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,901
of 238,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Epidemiology
#50
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,047 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.8. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 238,133 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.