4.5 Article

Semiparametric estimation of treatment effect in a pretest-posttest study with missing data

期刊

STATISTICAL SCIENCE
卷 20, 期 3, 页码 261-282

出版社

INST MATHEMATICAL STATISTICS
DOI: 10.1214/088342305000000151

关键词

analysis of covariance; covariate adjustment; influence function; inverse probability weighting; missing at random

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA051962-14, R01 CA085848, R01 CA051962-15, R01 CA051962, R01 CA085848-04, R01 CA085848-05] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAID NIH HHS [R37 AI031789-15, R37 AI031789-14, R37 AI031789] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The pretest-posttest study is commonplace in numerous applications. Typically, subjects are randomized to two treatments, and response is measured at baseline, prior to intervention with the randomized treatment (pretest), and at prespecified follow-up time (posttest). Interest focuses on the effect of treatments on the change between mean baseline and follow-up response. Missing posttest response for some subjects is routine, and disregarding missing cases can lead to invalid inference. Despite the popularity of this design, a consensus on an appropriate analysis when no data are missing, let alone for taking into account missing follow-up, does not exist. Under a semiparametric perspective on the pretest-posttest model, in which limited distributional assumptions on pretest or posttest response are made, we show how the theory of Robins, Rotnitzky and Zhao may be used to characterize a class of consistent treatment effect estimators and to identify the efficient estimator in the class. We then describe how the theoretical results translate into practice. The development not only shows how a unified framework for inference in this setting emerges from the Robins, Rotnitzky and Zhao theory, but also provides a review and demonstration of the key aspects of this theory in a familiar context. The results are also relevant to the problem of comparing two treatment means with adjustment for baseline covariates.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据