Suppr超能文献

治疗效益的不平等:我们能否确定一种新治疗方法对多数人还是少数人有益?

Inequality in treatment benefits: Can we determine if a new treatment benefits the many or the few?

作者信息

Huang Emily J, Fang Ethan X, Hanley Daniel F, Rosenblum Michael

机构信息

Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins University, 615 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21205,

Department of Statistics, Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, Thomas Building, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA.

出版信息

Biostatistics. 2017 Apr 1;18(2):308-324. doi: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxw049.

Abstract

In many randomized controlled trials, the primary analysis focuses on the average treatment effect and does not address whether treatment benefits are widespread or limited to a select few. This problem affects many disease areas, since it stems from how randomized trials, often the gold standard for evaluating treatments, are designed and analyzed. Our goal is to learn about the fraction who benefit from a new treatment using randomized trial data. We consider the case where the outcome is ordinal, with binary outcomes as a special case. In general, the fraction who benefit is non-identifiable, and the best that can be obtained are sharp lower and upper bounds. Our contributions include (i) proving the plug-in estimator of the bounds can be inconsistent if support restrictions are made on the joint distribution of the potential outcomes; (ii) developing the first consistent estimator for this case; and (iii) applying this estimator to a randomized trial of a medical treatment to determine whether the estimates can be informative. Our estimator is computed using linear programming, allowing fast implementation. R code is provided.

摘要

在许多随机对照试验中,主要分析集中在平均治疗效果上,并未涉及治疗益处是广泛存在还是仅限于少数特定人群。这个问题影响到许多疾病领域,因为它源于随机试验(通常是评估治疗方法的金标准)的设计和分析方式。我们的目标是利用随机试验数据了解从新治疗方法中获益的人群比例。我们考虑结果为有序变量的情况,二元结果作为特殊情况。一般来说,获益人群比例是无法识别的,所能得到的最佳结果是精确的下限和上限。我们的贡献包括:(i)证明如果对潜在结果的联合分布施加支持限制,边界的插件估计量可能不一致;(ii)为这种情况开发首个一致估计量;(iii)将此估计量应用于一项药物治疗的随机试验,以确定这些估计是否具有参考价值。我们的估计量通过线性规划计算得出,实现速度快。文中提供了R代码。

相似文献

5
6
Measuring the intervention in effectiveness research.在有效性研究中衡量干预措施。
West J Nurs Res. 1998 Oct;20(5):621-35. doi: 10.1177/019394599802000508.

本文引用的文献

7
Reliability of the modified Rankin Scale: a systematic review.改良Rankin量表的可靠性:一项系统评价。
Stroke. 2009 Oct;40(10):3393-5. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.557256. Epub 2009 Aug 13.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验