This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bellamy, S. L Articles by Have, T. R T. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bellamy, S. L Articles by Have, T. R T. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

An introduction to causal modeling in clinical trials

Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania, School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Julia Y Lin

Center for Multicultural Mental Health Research, Cambridge Health Alliance, Somerville, MA, USA

Thomas R Ten Have

Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania, School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Purpose We review and compare two causal modeling approaches that correspond to two major and distinct classes of inference – efficacy and interventionbased inference – in the context of randomized trials with subject noncompliance. Methods We review the definitions of efficacy and intervention-based effects in the clinical trials literature and relate these to two separate and distinct causal modeling approaches: the structural mean modeling (SMM) approach and the principal stratification, instrumental variable approach.

Results The SMM-based efficacy approach focuses on the effect of actually receiving treatment. In contrast, the principal stratification method addresses the effect of treatment assignment within partially unobserved latent subgroups defined by compliance behavior. While these approaches differ in terms of philosophy, model definitions, and estimation, they estimate the same causal effect under certain assumptions, but estimate very different causal effects when those assumptions are relaxed. We illustrate these results using a randomized psychiatry trial where the focus is physician compliance to the designated protocol and the other examines patient compliance to the designated protocol, both from the same trial.

Limitations The validity of the models under the instrumental variable, SMM and principal stratification approaches depends on modeling assumptions, some of which may not be verifiable from the observed data and potentially less realistic than the no-confounding assumption made by non-causal approaches.

Conclusions This comparison in terms of efficacy versus intervention-based effects in causal modeling parallels the explanatory versus pragmatic approaches in clinical trials research; therefore researchers should weigh carefully when choosing causal modeling methodology based on whether efficacy or intervention-based effects are of interest. Clinical Trials 2007; 4: 58–73; http://ctj.sagepub.com

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. Sargent and A. Grothey Sound Footing or Slippery Slope? The Value of Secondary Analyses of Randomized Trials J. Clin. Oncol., August 1, 2007; 25(22): 3191 - 3193. [Full Text] [PDF]