Cargando…

Bounding the per-protocol effect in randomized trials: an application to colorectal cancer screening

BACKGROUND: The per-protocol effect is the effect that would have been observed in a randomized trial had everybody followed the protocol. Though obtaining a valid point estimate for the per-protocol effect requires assumptions that are unverifiable and often implausible, lower and upper bounds for...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Swanson, Sonja A., Holme, Øyvind, Løberg, Magnus, Kalager, Mette, Bretthauer, Michael, Hoff, Geir, Aas, Eline, Hernán, Miguel A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4666083/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26620120
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-1056-8
_version_ 1782403658990747648
author Swanson, Sonja A.
Holme, Øyvind
Løberg, Magnus
Kalager, Mette
Bretthauer, Michael
Hoff, Geir
Aas, Eline
Hernán, Miguel A.
author_facet Swanson, Sonja A.
Holme, Øyvind
Løberg, Magnus
Kalager, Mette
Bretthauer, Michael
Hoff, Geir
Aas, Eline
Hernán, Miguel A.
author_sort Swanson, Sonja A.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The per-protocol effect is the effect that would have been observed in a randomized trial had everybody followed the protocol. Though obtaining a valid point estimate for the per-protocol effect requires assumptions that are unverifiable and often implausible, lower and upper bounds for the per-protocol effect may be estimated under more plausible assumptions. Strategies for obtaining bounds, known as “partial identification” methods, are especially promising in randomized trials. RESULTS: We estimated bounds for the per-protocol effect of colorectal cancer screening in the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention trial, a randomized trial of one-time sigmoidoscopy screening in 98,792 men and women aged 50–64 years. The screening was not available to the control arm, while approximately two thirds of individuals in the treatment arm attended the screening. Study outcomes included colorectal cancer incidence and mortality over 10 years of follow-up. Without any assumptions, the data alone provide little information about the size of the effect. Under the assumption that randomization had no effect on the outcome except through screening, a point estimate for the risk under no screening and bounds for the risk under screening are achievable. Thus, the 10-year risk difference for colorectal cancer was estimated to be at least −0.6 % but less than 37.0 %. Bounds for the risk difference for colorectal cancer mortality (–0.2 to 37.4 %) and all-cause mortality (–5.1 to 32.6 %) had similar widths. These bounds appear helpful in quantifying the maximum possible effectiveness, but cannot rule out harm. By making further assumptions about the effect in the subpopulation who would not attend screening regardless of their randomization arm, narrower bounds can be achieved. CONCLUSIONS: Bounding the per-protocol effect under several sets of assumptions illuminates our reliance on unverifiable assumptions, highlights the range of effect sizes we are most confident in, and can sometimes demonstrate whether to expect certain subpopulations to receive more benefit or harm than others. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00119912 (registered 6 July 2005) ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-1056-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4666083
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46660832015-12-02 Bounding the per-protocol effect in randomized trials: an application to colorectal cancer screening Swanson, Sonja A. Holme, Øyvind Løberg, Magnus Kalager, Mette Bretthauer, Michael Hoff, Geir Aas, Eline Hernán, Miguel A. Trials Methodology BACKGROUND: The per-protocol effect is the effect that would have been observed in a randomized trial had everybody followed the protocol. Though obtaining a valid point estimate for the per-protocol effect requires assumptions that are unverifiable and often implausible, lower and upper bounds for the per-protocol effect may be estimated under more plausible assumptions. Strategies for obtaining bounds, known as “partial identification” methods, are especially promising in randomized trials. RESULTS: We estimated bounds for the per-protocol effect of colorectal cancer screening in the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention trial, a randomized trial of one-time sigmoidoscopy screening in 98,792 men and women aged 50–64 years. The screening was not available to the control arm, while approximately two thirds of individuals in the treatment arm attended the screening. Study outcomes included colorectal cancer incidence and mortality over 10 years of follow-up. Without any assumptions, the data alone provide little information about the size of the effect. Under the assumption that randomization had no effect on the outcome except through screening, a point estimate for the risk under no screening and bounds for the risk under screening are achievable. Thus, the 10-year risk difference for colorectal cancer was estimated to be at least −0.6 % but less than 37.0 %. Bounds for the risk difference for colorectal cancer mortality (–0.2 to 37.4 %) and all-cause mortality (–5.1 to 32.6 %) had similar widths. These bounds appear helpful in quantifying the maximum possible effectiveness, but cannot rule out harm. By making further assumptions about the effect in the subpopulation who would not attend screening regardless of their randomization arm, narrower bounds can be achieved. CONCLUSIONS: Bounding the per-protocol effect under several sets of assumptions illuminates our reliance on unverifiable assumptions, highlights the range of effect sizes we are most confident in, and can sometimes demonstrate whether to expect certain subpopulations to receive more benefit or harm than others. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00119912 (registered 6 July 2005) ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-1056-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2015-11-30 /pmc/articles/PMC4666083/ /pubmed/26620120 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-1056-8 Text en © Swanson et al. 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Methodology
Swanson, Sonja A.
Holme, Øyvind
Løberg, Magnus
Kalager, Mette
Bretthauer, Michael
Hoff, Geir
Aas, Eline
Hernán, Miguel A.
Bounding the per-protocol effect in randomized trials: an application to colorectal cancer screening
title Bounding the per-protocol effect in randomized trials: an application to colorectal cancer screening
title_full Bounding the per-protocol effect in randomized trials: an application to colorectal cancer screening
title_fullStr Bounding the per-protocol effect in randomized trials: an application to colorectal cancer screening
title_full_unstemmed Bounding the per-protocol effect in randomized trials: an application to colorectal cancer screening
title_short Bounding the per-protocol effect in randomized trials: an application to colorectal cancer screening
title_sort bounding the per-protocol effect in randomized trials: an application to colorectal cancer screening
topic Methodology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4666083/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26620120
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-1056-8
work_keys_str_mv AT swansonsonjaa boundingtheperprotocoleffectinrandomizedtrialsanapplicationtocolorectalcancerscreening
AT holmeøyvind boundingtheperprotocoleffectinrandomizedtrialsanapplicationtocolorectalcancerscreening
AT løbergmagnus boundingtheperprotocoleffectinrandomizedtrialsanapplicationtocolorectalcancerscreening
AT kalagermette boundingtheperprotocoleffectinrandomizedtrialsanapplicationtocolorectalcancerscreening
AT bretthauermichael boundingtheperprotocoleffectinrandomizedtrialsanapplicationtocolorectalcancerscreening
AT hoffgeir boundingtheperprotocoleffectinrandomizedtrialsanapplicationtocolorectalcancerscreening
AT aaseline boundingtheperprotocoleffectinrandomizedtrialsanapplicationtocolorectalcancerscreening
AT hernanmiguela boundingtheperprotocoleffectinrandomizedtrialsanapplicationtocolorectalcancerscreening