Adjusting for non-compliance and contamination in randomized clinical trials.

By Jack Cuzick, Robert Edwards, N. Segnan. 1997

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

The Econometrics of Randomized Experiments (2016, background): “Bloom (1984), Zelen (1979, 1990), Baker and Lindeman (1994), Cuzick, Edwards, and Segnan (1997), contain early and independent discussions of the instrumental variables approach, some in the special case of one-sided non-compliance, and Imbens and Angrist (1994), Angrist, Imbens and Rubin (1996)…”
The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review (2013, unknown): “The RR for women invited to screening is attenuated compared with that for women who actually attend screening (Cuzick et al, 1997).”
Interpretation of the evidence for the efficacy and safety of statin therapy. (2016, methodology): “by applying an approximate estimate of the level of adherence to the estimate of the treatment effect provided by the intention-to-treat comparison.(28) For example, if the”
Estimating the effect of treatment in a proportional hazards model in the presence of non‐compliance and contamination (2007, methodology): “In Cuzick et al. (1997) we indicated a somewhat ad hoc approach based on stratification of time intervals.”
“A 16-yr Follow-up of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer” (2019, methodology): “adjusted RRs were calculated with adjustment for nonparticipation [12].”
Latent class instrumental variables: A clinical and biostatistical perspective (2015, methodology): “Cuzick, Edwards, and Segnan [27] computed latent classes IV estimate using a ‘balance equation’ without a monotonicity assumption.”