IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/ijbist/v12y2016i1p219-232n2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Selection Bias When Using Instrumental Variable Methods to Compare Two Treatments But More Than Two Treatments Are Available

Author

Listed:
  • Ertefaie Ashkan

    (Department of Statistics, Center for Pharmacoepidemiology Research and Training, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA)

  • Small Dylan

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

  • Flory James

    (Weill-Cornell School of Medicine, New York, USA)

  • Hennessy Sean

    (Center for Pharmacoepidemiology Research and Training, Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania, PA, USA)

Abstract

Instrumental variable (IV) methods are widely used to adjust for the bias in estimating treatment effects caused by unmeasured confounders in observational studies. It is common that a comparison between two treatments is focused on and that only subjects receiving one of these two treatments are considered in the analysis even though more than two treatments are available. In this paper, we provide empirical and theoretical evidence that the IV methods may result in biased treatment effects if applied on a data set in which subjects are preselected based on their received treatments. We frame this as a selection bias problem and propose a procedure that identifies the treatment effect of interest as a function of a vector of sensitivity parameters. We also list assumptions under which analyzing the preselected data does not lead to a biased treatment effect estimate. The performance of the proposed method is examined using simulation studies. We applied our method on The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database to estimate the comparative effect of metformin and sulfonylureas on weight gain among diabetic patients.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:ijbist:v:12:y:2016:i:1:p:219-232:n:2
    DOI: 10.1515/ijb-2015-0006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijb-2015-0006
    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-2015-0006?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. Constantine E. Frangakis & Donald B. Rubin, 2002. "Principal Stratification in Causal Inference," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 58(1), pages 21-29, March.
    2. 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.
    3. Jack Hadley & Daniel Polsky & Jeanne S. Mandelblatt & Jean M. Mitchell & Jane C. Weeks & Qin Wang & Yi‐Ting Hwang & OPTIONS Research Team, 2003. "An exploratory instrumental variable analysis of the outcomes of localized breast cancer treatments in a medicare population," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(3), pages 171-186, March.
    4. Qi Long & Roderick J. A. Little & Xihong Lin, 2010. "Estimating causal effects in trials involving multitreatment arms subject to non‐compliance: a Bayesian framework," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 59(3), pages 513-531, May.
    5. Imbens, Guido W., 2014. "Instrumental Variables: An Econometrician's Perspective," IZA Discussion Papers 8048, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Guido W. Imbens & Donald B. Rubin, 1997. "Estimating Outcome Distributions for Compliers in Instrumental Variables Models," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 64(4), pages 555-574.
    7. Jing Cheng & Dylan S. Small, 2006. "Bounds on causal effects in three‐arm trials with non‐compliance," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 68(5), pages 815-836, November.
    8. Brookhart M. Alan & Schneeweiss Sebastian, 2007. "Preference-Based Instrumental Variable Methods for the Estimation of Treatment Effects: Assessing Validity and Interpreting Results," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 3(1), pages 1-25, December.
    9. Jing Cheng & Jing Qin & Biao Zhang, 2009. "Semiparametric estimation and inference for distributional and general treatment effects," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 71(4), pages 881-904, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Linbo Wang & Thomas S. Richardson & Xiao-Hua Zhou, 2017. "Causal analysis of ordinal treatments and binary outcomes under truncation by death," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 79(3), pages 719-735, June.
    2. Michael E. Sobel & Bengt Muthén, 2012. "Compliance Mixture Modelling with a Zero-Effect Complier Class and Missing Data," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 68(4), pages 1037-1045, December.
    3. Kédagni, Désiré, 2023. "Identifying treatment effects in the presence of confounded types," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 234(2), pages 479-511.
    4. VanderWeele Tyler J, 2011. "Principal Stratification -- Uses and Limitations," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-14, July.
    5. Qi Long & Roderick J. A. Little & Xihong Lin, 2010. "Estimating causal effects in trials involving multitreatment arms subject to non‐compliance: a Bayesian framework," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 59(3), pages 513-531, May.
    6. Roderick J. Little & Qi Long & Xihong Lin, 2009. "A Comparison of Methods for Estimating the Causal Effect of a Treatment in Randomized Clinical Trials Subject to Noncompliance," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 65(2), pages 640-649, June.
    7. Huber, Martin & Wüthrich, Kaspar, 2017. "Evaluating local average and quantile treatment effects under endogeneity based on instruments: a review," FSES Working Papers 479, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Freiburg/Fribourg Switzerland.
    8. Peng Ding & Jiannan Lu, 2017. "Principal stratification analysis using principal scores," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 79(3), pages 757-777, June.
    9. Dean Follmann, 2006. "Augmented Designs to Assess Immune Response in Vaccine Trials," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 62(4), pages 1161-1169, December.
    10. Huber Martin & Wüthrich Kaspar, 2019. "Local Average and Quantile Treatment Effects Under Endogeneity: A Review," Journal of Econometric Methods, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-27, January.
    11. Steven Lehrer & Weili Ding, 2004. "Estimating Dynamic Treatment Effects from Project STAR," Econometric Society 2004 North American Summer Meetings 252, Econometric Society.
    12. Fan Li & Constantine E. Frangakis, 2006. "Polydesigns and Causal Inference," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 62(2), pages 343-351, June.
    13. 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.
    14. Michael R. Elliott & Marshall M. Joffe & Zhen Chen, 2006. "A Potential Outcomes Approach to Developmental Toxicity Analyses," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 62(2), pages 352-360, June.
    15. Fabrizia Mealli & Barbara Pacini & Elena Stanghellini, 2016. "Identification of Principal Causal Effects Using Additional Outcomes in Concentration Graphs," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 41(5), pages 463-480, October.
    16. Martin Huber & Giovanni Mellace, 2014. "Testing exclusion restrictions and additive separability in sample selection models," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 75-92, August.
    17. Gilbert Peter B. & Blette Bryan S. & Hudgens Michael G. & Shepherd Bryan E., 2020. "Post-randomization Biomarker Effect Modification Analysis in an HIV Vaccine Clinical Trial," Journal of Causal Inference, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 54-69, January.
    18. Chiba, Yasutaka, 2012. "A note on bounds for the causal infectiousness effect in vaccine trials," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 82(7), pages 1422-1429.
    19. Dustin M. Long & Michael G. Hudgens, 2013. "Sharpening Bounds on Principal Effects with Covariates," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 69(4), pages 812-819, December.
    20. 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.

    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:12:y:2016:i:1:p:219-232:n:2. 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.