4.5 Article

A Causal Model for Joint Evaluation of Placebo and Treatment-Specific Effects in Clinical Trials

Journal

BIOMETRICS
Volume 69, Issue 2, Pages 318-327

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/biom.12005

Keywords

Blinding; Causal inference; Confounding; Counterfactual; Placebo effect; Potential outcome

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P30 CA006973] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Evaluation of medical treatments is frequently complicated by the presence of substantial placebo effects, especially on relatively subjective endpoints, and the standard solution to this problem is a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial. However, effective blinding does not guarantee that all patients have the same belief or mentality about which treatment they have received (or treatmentality, for brevity), making it difficult to interpret the usual intent-to-treat effect as a causal effect. We discuss the causal relationships among treatment, treatmentality and the clinical outcome of interest, and propose a causal model for joint evaluation of placebo and treatment-specific effects. The model highlights the importance of measuring and incorporating patient treatmentality and suggests that each treatment group should be considered a separate observational study with a patient's treatmentality playing the role of an uncontrolled exposure. This perspective allows us to adapt existing methods for dealing with confounding to joint estimation of placebo and treatment-specific effects using measured treatmentality data, commonly known as blinding assessment data. We first apply this approach to the most common type of blinding assessment data, which is categorical, and illustrate the methods using an example from asthma. We then propose that blinding assessment data can be collected as a continuous variable, specifically when a patient's treatmentality is measured as a subjective probability, and describe analytic methods for that case.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available