Abstract
Large effects in moderate to large studies are typically insensitive to small and moderate unobserved biases, but the concept of a ‘large effect’ is vague. What if most subjects are not much affected by treatment, but a small fraction, perhaps 10% or 20% of subjects, are strongly affected? On average, such an effect may be small, but not at all small for the affected fraction. Is such an effect insensitive to small and moderate unobserved biases?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Conover, W.J., Salsburg, D.S.: Locally most powerful tests for detecting treatment effects when only a subset of patients can be expected to ‘respond’ to treatment. Biometrics 44, 189–196 (1988)
Lehmann, E.L.: The power of rank tests. Ann Math Statist 24, 23–43 (1953)
Rosenbaum, P.R.: Reduced sensitivity to hidden bias at upper quantiles in observational studies with dilated treatment effects. Biometrics 55, 560–564 (1999)
Rosenbaum, P.R.: Effects attributable to treatment: Inference in experiments and observational studies with a discrete pivot. Biometrika 88, 219–231 (2001)
Rosenbaum, P.R.: Observational Studies (2nd ed.). New York: Springer (2002)
Rosenbaum, P.R.: Design sensitivity in observational studies. Biometrika 91, 153–164 (2004)
Rosenbaum, P.R.: Confidence intervals for uncommon but dramatic responses to treatment. Biometrics 63, 1164–1171 (2007)
Rosenbaum, P.R., Ross R.N., Silber, J.H.: Minimum distance matched sampling with fine balance in an observational study of treatment for ovarian cancer. J Am Statist Assoc 102, 75–83 (2007)
Rosenbaum, P.R.: What aspects of the design of an observational study affect its sensitivity to bias from covariates that were not observed? Festshrift for Paul W. Holland. Princeton, NJ: ETS (2009)
Rosenbaum, P.R., Silber, J.H. : Amplification of sensitivity analysis in observational studies. J Am Statist Assoc, to appear (2009)
Salsburg, D.S.: Alternative hypotheses for the effects of drugs in small-scale clinical studies. Biometrics 42, 671–674 (1986)
Salsburg, D.S.: The Use of Restricted Significance Tests in Clinical Trials. New York: Springer (1992)
Schoket, B., Phillips, D.H., Hewer, A., Vincze, I. : P-Postlabelling detection of aromatic DNA adducts in peripheral blood lymphocytes from aluminum production plant workers. Mutation Res 260, 89–98 (1991)
Silber, J.H., Rosenbaum, P.R., Polsky, D., Ross, R.N., Even-Shoshan, O., Schwartz, S., Armstrong, K.A., Randall, T.C. : Does ovarian cancer treatment and survival differ by the specialty providing chemotherapy? J Clin Oncol 25, 1169–1175 (2007)
Stephenson, W.R.: A general class of one-sample nonparametric test statistics based on subsamples. J Am Statist Assoc 76, 960–966 (1981)
Stephenson, W.R., Ghosh, M. : Two sample nonparametric tests based on subsamples. Commun Statist 14, 1669–1684 (1985)
Wilcoxon, F.: Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics 1, 80–83 (1945)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer-Verlag New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rosenbaum, P.R. (2010). Uncommon but Dramatic Responses to Treatment. In: Design of Observational Studies. Springer Series in Statistics. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1213-8_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1213-8_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-1212-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-1213-8
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)