This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map 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 Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Allard, R. Articles by Boivin, J.-F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Allard, R. Articles by Boivin, J.-F. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Using causal models to show the effect of untestable assumptions on effect estimates in randomized controlled trials

Regional Health Agency, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Joint Departments of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, rallard{at}santepub-mtl.qc.ca

Jean-François Boivin

Joint Departments of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Background The methods by which randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are analyzed rest on several assumptions, most of which are untestable.

Purpose To show how estimates of the net effect of treatment on survival can be obtained requiring only the assumption that randomization produced equivalent groups.

Methods The assumptions underlying ratio measures of effect, based on disease occurrence times (DOT) obtained from survival curves, are identified and cumulatively removed.

Results The four assumptions usually made are that (1) the ratio of disease incidence rates under treatment and under reference exposure is constant over time, (2) the groups being compared are exchangeable (equivalent), (3) a subject's DOT under treatment is independent of what his DOT would have been under the reference exposure, and (4) the treatment effect, if any, is in the same direction in all subjects. Removing Assumption 4 leads to an estimator of effect resembling the etiologic fraction, but able to accommodate both causative and preventive effects. Removing all assumptions but that of exchangeability still permits the estimation, directly from the survival curves, of a range of effect magnitudes, causative or preventive, compatible with the observed DOTs. The exchangeability assumption is the easiest to meet, by randomizing enough subjects.

Limitations The statistical uncertainty that affects the estimates of survival probabilities has been ignored. Taking uncertainty into account further widens the range of effects compatible with the observations.

Conclusions Retaining only the exchangeability assumption allows for a range of possible treatment effects to be estimated, although it may be wide. Readers of RCT reports should understand that the determination of a point estimate of effect within this range is entirely a function of unverifiable analytic assumptions. Clinical Trials 2007; 4: 611—620. http://ctj.sagepub.com

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