Estimating treatment effect via simple cross design synthesis

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the traditional gold standard evidence for medical decision-making. However, protocols that limit enrollment eligibility introduce selection error that severely limits a RCT's applicability to a wide range of patients. Conversely, high quality observational data can be representative of entire populations, but freedom to choose treatment can bias estimators based on this data. Cross design synthesis (CDS) is an approach to combining both RCT and observational data in a single analysis that capitalizes on the RCT's strong internal validity and the observational study's strong external validity. We proposed and assessed a simple estimator of effect size based on the CDS approach. We evaluated its properties within a formal framework of causal estimation and compared our estimator with more traditional estimators based on single sources of evidence. We show that under ideal conditions the simple CDS estimator is unbiased whenever the observational data-based estimators' treatment selection error is constant across those who are and are not eligible for RCT participation. Whereas this assumption may not often hold in practice, assumptions required for the unbiasedness of usual single-source estimators may also be implausible. We show that, under some reasonable data assumptions, our simple CDS estimator has smaller bias and better coverage than commonly used estimates based on randomized or observational studies alone.

[1]  David M. Eddy,et al.  Meta-analysis by the confidence profile method , 1992 .

[2]  Paul Grootendorst,et al.  A review of instrumental variables estimation of treatment effects in the applied health sciences , 2007, Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology.

[3]  C. Frangakis The calibration of treatment effects from clinical trials to target populations , 2009, Clinical trials.

[4]  R. D'Agostino Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. , 2005, Statistics in medicine.

[5]  E. Stuart,et al.  Misunderstandings among Experimentalists and Observationalists about Causal Inference , 2007 .

[6]  Sylvia Richardson,et al.  Using Bayesian graphical models to model biases in observational studies and to combine multiple sources of data: application to low birth weight and water disinfection by‐products , 2009 .

[7]  M. Fortin,et al.  Randomized Controlled Trials: Do They Have External Validity for Patients With Multiple Comorbidities? , 2006, The Annals of Family Medicine.

[8]  D. Petitti,et al.  Predictors of insulin regimens and impact on outcomes in youth with type 1 diabetes: the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study. , 2009, The Journal of pediatrics.

[9]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Models for potentially biased evidence in meta‐analysis using empirically based priors , 2009 .

[10]  W. Tamborlane,et al.  A randomized, prospective trial comparing the efficacy of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion with multiple daily injections using insulin glargine. , 2004, Diabetes care.

[11]  David J Spiegelhalter,et al.  Bias modelling in evidence synthesis , 2009, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A,.

[12]  Kerrie Mengersen,et al.  Adjusted Likelihoods for Synthesizing Empirical Evidence from Studies that Differ in Quality and Design: Effects of Environmental Tobacco Smoke , 2004 .

[13]  D. Rubin The design versus the analysis of observational studies for causal effects: parallels with the design of randomized trials , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[14]  K. Humphreys,et al.  Use of exclusion criteria in selecting research subjects and its effect on the generalizability of alcohol treatment outcome studies. , 2000, The American journal of psychiatry.

[15]  L. Leslie,et al.  The Food and Drug Administration’s Deliberations on Antidepressant Use in Pediatric Patients , 2005, Pediatrics.

[16]  Gary King,et al.  Misunderstandings between experimentalists and observationalists about causal inference , 2008 .

[17]  A. Hartz,et al.  A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials , 2000, American journal of ophthalmology.

[18]  Garnet L Anderson,et al.  Combined analysis of Women's Health Initiative observational and clinical trial data on postmenopausal hormone treatment and cardiovascular disease. , 2006, American journal of epidemiology.

[19]  Sander Greenland,et al.  The Impact of Prior Distributions for Uncontrolled Confounding and Response Bias , 2003 .

[20]  William G. Cochran,et al.  Sampling Techniques, 3rd Edition , 1963 .

[21]  S. Cole,et al.  Generalizing evidence from randomized clinical trials to target populations: The ACTG 320 trial. , 2010, American journal of epidemiology.

[22]  Mark Zimmerman,et al.  Exclusion Criteria Used in Antidepressant Efficacy Trials: Consistency Across Studies and Representativeness of Samples Included , 2004, The Journal of nervous and mental disease.

[23]  William Gardner,et al.  Generalizing from clinical trial data: A case study. The risk of suicidality among pediatric antidepressant users , 2008, Statistics in medicine.

[24]  Sander Greenland,et al.  Multiple‐bias modelling for analysis of observational data , 2005 .

[25]  Roger L. Brown,et al.  Echinacea for Treating the Common Cold , 2010, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[26]  David R. Jones,et al.  Hierarchical models in generalized synthesis of evidence: an example based on studies of breast cancer screening. , 2000, Statistics in medicine.