Clarifying Selection Bias in Cluster Randomized Trials: Estimands and Estimation

TL;DR

This paper rigorously defines causal estimands in cluster randomized trials with post-randomization selection bias, clarifies conditions for valid covariate adjustment, and assesses the impact of heterogeneity on estimand estimation through simulations.

Contribution

It introduces a principal stratification framework for understanding selection bias in cluster trials and derives formulas for different estimands, highlighting when covariate adjustment is valid.

Findings

Covariate adjustment validity depends on effect homogeneity across strata.

Selection bias affects the estimand of the recruited population.

Without additional data, the overall population effect is generally not estimable.

Abstract

In cluster randomized trials, patients are typically recruited after clusters are randomized, and the recruiters and patients may not be blinded to the assignment. This often leads to differential recruitment and consequently systematic differences in baseline characteristics of the recruited patients between intervention and control arms, inducing post-randomization selection bias. We rigorously define causal estimands in the presence of selection bias. We elucidate the conditions under which standard covariate adjustment methods can validly estimate these estimands. We further discuss the additional data and assumptions necessary for estimating causal effects when such conditions are not met. Adopting the principal stratification framework in causal inference, we clarify there are two average treatment effect (ATE) estimands in cluster randomized trials: one for the overall population and one for the recruited population. We derive the analytical formula of the two estimands in terms of principal-stratum-specific causal effects. Using simulation studies, we assess the empirical performance of the multivariable regression adjustment method under different data generating processes leading to selection bias. When treatment effects are heterogeneous across principal strata, the ATE on the overall population generally differs from the ATE on the recruited population. An intention-to-treat analysis of the recruited sample leads to biased estimates of both ATEs. In the presence of post-randomization selection and without additional data on the non-recruited subjects, the ATE on the recruited population is estimable only when the treatment effects are homogenous between principal strata, and the ATE on the overall population is generally not estimable. The extent to which covariate adjustment can remove selection bias depends on the degree of effect heterogeneity across principal strata.