IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/ijbist/v10y2014i2p21n6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Large Sample Bounds on the Survivor Average Causal Effect in the Presence of a Binary Covariate with Conditionally Ignorable Treatment Assignment

Author

Listed:
  • Freiman Michael H.

    (Center for Disclosure Avoidance Research, U.S. Census Bureau, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233, USA)

  • S. Small Dylan

    (Department of Statistics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA)

Abstract

A common problem when conducting an experiment or observational study for the purpose of causal inference is “censoring by death,” in which an event occurring during the experiment causes the desired outcome value – such as quality of life (QOL) – not to be defined for some subjects. One approach to this is to estimate the Survivor Average Causal Effect (SACE), which is the difference in the mean QOL between the treated and control arms, considering only those individuals who would have had well-defined QOL regardless of whether they received the treatment of interest, where the treatment is imposed by the researcher in an experiment or by the subject in the case of an observational study. Zhang and Rubin [5] (Estimation of causal effects via principal stratification when some outcomes are truncated by “death”. J Educ Behav Stat 2003;28:353–68) have proposed a methodology to calculate large sample bounds – bounds on the SACE that assume that the exact QOL distribution for each arm is known or that the finite sample size can be ignored – in the case of a randomized experiment. We examine a modification of these bounds in the case where a binary covariate describing each of the subjects is available and assignment to the treatment or control group is ignorable conditional on the covariate. Using a dataset involving an employment training program, we find that the use of the covariate does not substantially change the bounds in this case, although it does weaken the assumptions about the sample and thus make the bounds more widely applicable. However, simulations show that the use of a binary covariate can in some cases dramatically narrow the bounds. Extensions and generalizations to more complicated variants of this situation are discussed, although the amount of computation increases very quickly as the number of covariates and the number of possible values of each covariate increase.

Suggested Citation

  • Freiman Michael H. & S. Small Dylan, 2014. "Large Sample Bounds on the Survivor Average Causal Effect in the Presence of a Binary Covariate with Conditionally Ignorable Treatment Assignment," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 10(2), pages 143-163, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:ijbist:v:10:y:2014:i:2:p:21:n:6
    DOI: 10.1515/ijb-2013-0039
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijb-2013-0039
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/ijb-2013-0039?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter B. Gilbert & Ronald J. Bosch & Michael G. Hudgens, 2003. "Sensitivity Analysis for the Assessment of Causal Vaccine Effects on Viral Load in HIV Vaccine Trials," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 59(3), pages 531-541, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fan Yang & Peng Ding, 2018. "Using survival information in truncation by death problems without the monotonicity assumption," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 74(4), pages 1232-1239, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrea Mercatanti & Fan Li, 2017. "Do debit cards decrease cash demand?: causal inference and sensitivity analysis using principal stratification," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 66(4), pages 759-776, August.
    2. VanderWeele Tyler J, 2011. "Principal Stratification -- Uses and Limitations," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-14, July.
    3. Yannis Jemiai & Andrea Rotnitzky & Bryan E. Shepherd & Peter B. Gilbert, 2007. "Semiparametric estimation of treatment effects given base‐line covariates on an outcome measured after a post‐randomization event occurs," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 69(5), pages 879-901, November.
    4. Dean Follmann & Michael P. Fay & Michael Proschan, 2009. "Chop-Lump Tests for Vaccine Trials," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 65(3), pages 885-893, September.
    5. Kwonsang Lee & Dylan S. Small & Paul R. Rosenbaum, 2018. "A powerful approach to the study of moderate effect modification in observational studies," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 74(4), pages 1161-1170, December.
    6. Paul R. Rosenbaum, 2015. "Bahadur Efficiency of Sensitivity Analyses in Observational Studies," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 110(509), pages 205-217, March.
    7. James Y. Dai & Peter B. Gilbert & Benoît R. Mâsse, 2012. "Partially Hidden Markov Model for Time-Varying Principal Stratification in HIV Prevention Trials," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 107(497), pages 52-65, March.
    8. Shanshan Luo & Wei Li & Yangbo He, 2023. "Causal inference with outcomes truncated by death in multiarm studies," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(1), pages 502-513, March.
    9. Follmann Dean & Fay Michael, 2012. "Bounds on the Effect of Vaccine Induced Immune Response on Outcome," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 8(2), pages 1-19, January.
    10. Chiba Yasutaka, 2012. "The Large Sample Bounds on the Principal Strata Effect with Application to a Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-19, May.
    11. Bryan E. Shepherd & Peter B. Gilbert & Yannis Jemiai & Andrea Rotnitzky, 2006. "Sensitivity Analyses Comparing Outcomes Only Existing in a Subset Selected Post-Randomization, Conditional on Covariates, with Application to HIV Vaccine Trials," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 62(2), pages 332-342, June.
    12. Ying Huang & Peter B. Gilbert & Holly Janes, 2012. "Assessing Treatment-Selection Markers using a Potential Outcomes Framework," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 68(3), pages 687-696, September.
    13. Ertefaie Ashkan & Small Dylan & Flory James & Hennessy Sean, 2016. "Selection Bias When Using Instrumental Variable Methods to Compare Two Treatments But More Than Two Treatments Are Available," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 219-232, May.
    14. Arvid Sjölander & Keith Humphreys & Stijn Vansteelandt & Rino Bellocco & Juni Palmgren, 2009. "Sensitivity Analysis for Principal Stratum Direct Effects, with an Application to a Study of Physical Activity and Coronary Heart Disease," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 65(2), pages 514-520, June.
    15. Gilbert Peter B. & Hudgens Michael G. & Wolfson Julian, 2011. "Commentary on "Principal Stratification -- a Goal or a Tool?" by Judea Pearl," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-15, September.
    16. Paul R. Rosenbaum, 2013. "Impact of Multiple Matched Controls on Design Sensitivity in Observational Studies," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 69(1), pages 118-127, March.
    17. Douglas Hayden & Donna K. Pauler & David Schoenfeld, 2005. "An Estimator for Treatment Comparisons among Survivors in Randomized Trials," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 61(1), pages 305-310, March.
    18. Devan V. Mehrotra & Xiaoming Li & Peter B. Gilbert, 2006. "A Comparison of Eight Methods for the Dual-Endpoint Evaluation of Efficacy in a Proof-of-Concept HIV Vaccine Trial," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 62(3), pages 893-900, September.
    19. James Robins & Andrea Rotnitzky & Stijn Vansteelandt, 2007. "Discussions," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 63(3), pages 650-653, September.
    20. Halloran M. Elizabeth & Hudgens Michael G., 2012. "Causal Inference for Vaccine Effects on Infectiousness," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 8(2), pages 1-40, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:ijbist:v:10:y:2014:i:2:p:21:n:6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.