4.6 Article

Adjustment for compliance behavior in trials of epidural analgesia in labor using instrumental variable meta-analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 68, Issue 5, Pages 525-533

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.005

Keywords

Instrumental variables; Noncompliance; Randomized controlled trials; Intention-to-treat; Epidural analgesia; Cesarean section

Funding

  1. Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council [573122]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may cause bias when compliance is poor. Noncompliance describes failure to comply with allocation in the intervention arm, and contamination describes uptake of the intervention in the control arm. Instrumental variable (IV) analysis can be applied in addition to the primary ITT analysis to estimate the causal effect adjusted for noncompliance and contamination, assuming that noncompliers would have had the same treatment benefit as compliers. We aimed to compare ITT and IV meta-analysis of the association between epidural analgesia in labor and cesarean section. Study Design and Setting: The study was restricted to 27 trials in a Cochrane Systematic Review. The association between epidural analgesia in labor and cesarean section was calculated using ITT and IV analyses. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) were calculated using fixed-effects meta-analysis. Results: In 18 trials with compliance data, noncompliance was 23% and contamination was 27%. In 10 trials with outcome data stratified by compliance, the pooled RR for cesarean section following epidural analgesia was 1.37 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.00, 1.89; P = 0.049] using IV compared with 1.19 (95% CI: 0.93, 1.51; P = 0.16) using ITT. Conclusion: ITT meta-analysis underestimates the effect of receiving epidural analgesia in labor on cesarean section compared with IV meta-analysis. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available