Cargando…

Comparison of Bayesian Networks, G-estimation and linear models to estimate causal treatment effects in aggregated N-of-1 trials with carry-over effects

BACKGROUND: The aggregation of a series of N-of-1 trials presents an innovative and efficient study design, as an alternative to traditional randomized clinical trials. Challenges for the statistical analysis arise when there is carry-over or complex dependencies of the treatment effect of interest....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gärtner, Thomas, Schneider, Juliana, Arnrich, Bert, Konigorski, Stefan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10440905/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37605171
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-023-02012-5
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: The aggregation of a series of N-of-1 trials presents an innovative and efficient study design, as an alternative to traditional randomized clinical trials. Challenges for the statistical analysis arise when there is carry-over or complex dependencies of the treatment effect of interest. METHODS: In this study, we evaluate and compare methods for the analysis of aggregated N-of-1 trials in different scenarios with carry-over and complex dependencies of treatment effects on covariates. For this, we simulate data of a series of N-of-1 trials for Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain based on assumed causal relationships parameterized by directed acyclic graphs. In addition to existing statistical methods such as regression models, Bayesian Networks, and G-estimation, we introduce a carry-over adjusted parametric model (COAPM). RESULTS: The results show that all evaluated existing models have a good performance when there is no carry-over and no treatment dependence. When there is carry-over, COAPM yields unbiased and more efficient estimates while all other methods show some bias in the estimation. When there is known treatment dependence, all approaches that are capable to model it yield unbiased estimates. Finally, the efficiency of all methods decreases slightly when there are missing values, and the bias in the estimates can also increase. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents a systematic evaluation of existing and novel approaches for the statistical analysis of a series of N-of-1 trials. We derive practical recommendations which methods may be best in which scenarios. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-023-02012-5.