Is inverse probability of censoring weighting a safer choice than per-protocol analysis in clinical trials?

ABSTRACT: Deviation from the treatment strategy under investigation occurs in many clinical trials. We term this intervention deviation. Per-protocol analyses are widely adopted to estimate a hypothetical estimand without the occurrence of intervention deviation. Per-protocol by censoring is prone to selection bias when intervention deviation is associated with time-varying confounders that also influence counterfactual outcomes. This can be corrected by inverse probability of censoring weighting, which gives extra weight to uncensored individuals who had similar prognostic characteristics to censored individuals. Such weights are computed by modelling selected covariates. Inverse probability of censoring weighting relies on the no unmeasured confounding assumption whose plausibility is not statisti

SUBMITTER: Xuan J 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC11874582 | biostudies-literature | 2025 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature