Researcher profile

Richard Grieve

Richard Grieve contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Methodology Applications

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - Baseline

4works

0followers

2topics

4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

preprint2020arXiv

Comparing the Performance of Statistical Adjustment Methods By Recovering the Experimental Benchmark from the REFLUX Trial

Much evidence in comparative effectiveness research is based on observational studies. Researchers who conduct observational studies typically assume that there are no unobservable differences between the treated and control groups. Treatment effects are estimated after adjusting for observed differences between treated and controls. However, treatment effect estimates may be biased due to model misspecification. That is, if the method of treatment effect estimation imposes unduly strong functional form assumptions, treatment effect estimates may be significantly biased. In this study, we compare the performance of a wide variety of treatment effect estimation methods. We do so within the context of the REFLUX study from the UK. In REFLUX, after study qualification, participants were enrolled in either a randomized trial arm or patient preference arm. In the randomized trial, patients were randomly assigned to either surgery or medical management. In the patient preference arm, participants selected to either have surgery or medical management. We attempt to recover the treatment effect estimate from the randomized trial arm using the data from the patient preference arm of the study. We vary the method of treatment effect estimation and record which methods are successful and which are not. We apply over 20 different methods including standard regression models as well as advanced machine learning methods. We find that simple propensity score matching methods perform the worst. We also find significant variation in performance across methods. The wide variation in performance suggests analysts should use multiple methods of estimation as a robustness check.

preprint2016arXiv

Instrumental variable approaches for estimating complier average causal effects on bivariate outcomes in randomised trials with non-compliance

In Randomised Controlled Trials (RCT) with treatment non-compliance, instrumental variable approaches are used to estimate complier average causal effects. We extend these approaches to cost-effectiveness analyses, where methods need to recognise the correlation between cost and health outcomes. We propose a Bayesian full likelihood (BFL) approach, which jointly models the effects of random assignment on treatment received and the outcomes, and a three-stage least squares (3sls) method, which acknowledges the correlation between the endpoints, and the endogeneity of the treatment received. This investigation is motivated by the REFLUX study, which exemplifies the setting where compliance differs between the RCT and routine practice. A simulation is used to compare the methods performance. We find that failure to model the correlation between the outcomes and treatment received correctly can result in poor CI coverage and biased estimates. By contrast, BFL and 3sls methods provide unbiased estimates with good coverage.

preprint2014arXiv

A comparison of multiple imputation methods for bivariate hierarchical outcomes

Missing observations are common in cluster randomised trials. Approaches taken to handling such missing data include: complete case analysis, single-level multiple imputation that ignores the clustering, multiple imputation with a fixed effect for each cluster and multilevel multiple imputation. We conducted a simulation study to assess the performance of these approaches, in terms of confidence interval coverage and empirical bias in the estimated treatment effects. Missing-at-random clustered data scenarios were simulated following a full-factorial design. An Analysis of Variance was carried out to study the influence of the simulation factors on each performance measure. When the randomised treatment arm was associated with missingness, complete case analysis resulted in biased treatment effect estimates. Across all the missing data mechanisms considered, the multiple imputation methods provided estimators with negligible bias. Confidence interval coverage was generally in excess of nominal levels (up to 99.8%) following fixed-effects multiple imputation, and too low following single-level multiple imputation. Multilevel multiple imputation led to coverage levels of approximately 95% throughout. The approach to handling missing data was the most influential factor on the bias and coverage. Within each method, the most important factors were the number and size of clusters, and the intraclass correlation coefficient.

preprint2012arXiv

Handling missing values in cost-effectiveness analyses that use data from cluster randomised trials

Public policy-makers use cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) to decide which health and social care interventions to provide. Appropriate methods have not been developed for handling missing data in complex settings, such as for CEA that use data from cluster randomised trials (CRTs). We present a multilevel multiple imputation (MI) approach that recognises when missing data have a hierarchical structure, and is compatible with the bivariate multilevel models used to report cost-effectiveness. We contrast the multilevel MI approach with single-level MI and complete case analysis in a CEA alongside a CRT. The paper highlights the importance of adopting a principled approach to handling missing values in settings with complex data structures.