Clustered Treatment Assignments and Sensitivity to Unmeasured Biases in Observational Studies

REFERENCES

• Baiocchi, M., Small, D.S., Lorch, S., Rosenbaum, P.R. (2010), Building a Stronger Instrument in an Observational Study of Perinatal Care for Premature Infants, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 105, 1285–1296.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruce, M.L., Have, T.R., Reynolds, C.F., III, Katz, Schulberg, H.C., Mulsant, B.H., Brown, G.K., McAvay, G.J., Pearson, J.L., Alexopoulos, G.S. (2004), Reducing Suicidal Ideation and Depressive Symptoms in Depressed Older Primary Care Patients: A Randomized Trial, Journal of the American Medical Association, 291, 1081–1091.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cochran, W.G. (1965), The Planning of Observational Studies of Human Populations,(with discussion), Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 128, 234–266.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conover, W.J., Iman, R.L. (1981), Rank Transformations as a Bridge Between Parametric and Nonparametric Statistics, The American Statistician, 35, 124–129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Copas, J., Eguchi, S. (2001), Local Sensitivity Approximations for Selectivity Bias, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 63, 871–896.
   Google Scholar
• Cornfield, J. (1978), Randomization by Group, American Journal of Epidemiology, 208, 100–102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cornfield, J., Haenszel, W., Hammond, E., Lilienfeld, A., Shimkin, M., Wynder, E. (1959), Smoking and Lung Cancer, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 22, 173–203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox, D.R. (1952), Planning of Experiments, New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Del Ninno, C., Dorosh, P.A., Smith, L.C., Roy, D.K. (2001), The 1998 Floods in Bangladesh: Disaster Impacts, Household Coping Strategies and Response, Research Report 122, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, R.A. (1935), The Design of Experiments, Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.
   Google Scholar
• Gastwirth, J.L. (1992), Methods for Assessing the Sensitivity of Statistical Comparisons Used in Title VII Cases to Omitted Variables, Jurimetrics, 33, 19–34.
   Google Scholar
• Hansen, B.B. (2007), Optmatch: Flexible, Optimal Matching for Observational Studies, R News, 7, 18–24.
   Google Scholar
• Hansen, B.B., Bowers, J. (2009), Attributing Effects to a Cluster Randomized Get-Out-the-Vote Campaign, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 104, 873–875.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hodges, J.L., Lehmann, E.L. (1963), Estimates of Location Based on Ranks, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 34, 598–611.
   Google Scholar
• Hosman, C.A., Hansen, B.B., Holland, P. W.H. (2010), The Sensitivity of Linear Regression Coefficients’ Confidence Limits to the Omission of a Confounder, Annals of Applied Statistics, 4, 849–870.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Imbens, G.W. (2003), Sensitivity to Exogeneity Assumptions in Program Evaluation, American Economic Review, 93, 126–132.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalton, G. (1968), Standardization: A Technique to Control for Extraneous Variables, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series C, 17, 118–136.
   Google Scholar
• Lam, F.C., Longnecker, M.T. (1983), A Modified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test for Paired Data, Biometrika, 70, 310–313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehmann, E.L. (1975), Nonparametrics, San Francisco, CA: Holden-Day.
   Google Scholar
• Mantel, N. (1977), Mantel-Haenszel Analyses of Litter-Matched Time-to-Response Data, With Modifications for Recovery of Interlitter Information, Cancer Research, 37, 3863–3868.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marcus, S.M. (1997), Using Omitted Variable Bias to Assess Uncertainty in the Estimation of an AIDS Education Treatment Effect, Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22, 193–201.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray, D. (1998), Design and Analysis of Group Randomized Trials, New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Neyman, J. (1923, 1990), On the Application of Probability Theory to Agricultural Experiments, Statistical Science, 5, 463–480.
   Google Scholar
• Pitman, E.J. (1937), Statistical Tests Applicable to Samples From Any Population, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 4 (Supplement), 119–130.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum, P.R. (1987), Sensitivity Analysis for Certain Permutation Inferences in Matched Observational Studies, Biometrika, 74, 13–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum, P.R. (1993), Hodges-Lehmann Point Estimates of Treatment Effect in Observational Studies, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 88, 1250–1253.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum, P.R. (2002a), “Covariance Adjustment in Randomized Experiments and Observational Studies” (with discussion), Statistical Science, 17, 286–327.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum, P.R. (2002b), Observational Studies (2nd ed.), New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum, P.R. (2004), Design Sensitivity in Observational Studies, Biometrika, 91, 153–164.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum, P.R. (2005), Heterogeneity and Causality: Unit Heterogeneity and Design Sensitivity in Observational Studies, The American Statistician, 59, 147–152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum, P.R. (2010), Design of Observational Studies, New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum, P.R. (2012), Testing One Hypothesis Twice in Observational Studies, Biometrika, 99, 763–774.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum, P.R., Rubin, D.B. (1983), Assessing Sensitivity to an Unobserved Binary Covariate in an Observational Study With Binary Outcome, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 45, 212–218.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum, P.R., Silber, J.H. (2009), Amplification of Sensitivity Analysis in Observational Studies, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 104, 1398–1405.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubin, D.B. (1974), Estimating Causal Effects of Treatments in Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies, Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 688–701.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Small, D. (2007), Sensitivity Analysis for Instrumental Variables Regression With Overidentifying Restrictions, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 102, 1049–1058.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Small, D., Have, T., Rosenbaum, P.R. (2008), Randomization Inference in a Group-Randomized Trial of Treatments for Depression: Covariate Adjustment, Noncompliance and Quantile Effects, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 103, 271–279.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stuart, E.A. (2010), Matching Methods for Causal Inference, Statistical Science, 25, 1–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stuart, E.A., Hanna, D.B. (2013), Should Epidemiologists be More Sensitive to Design Sensitivity?, Epidemiology, 24, 88–89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Elteren, P.H. (1960), On the Combination of Independent Two-Sample Tests of Wilcoxon, Bulletin of the International Statistical Institute, 33, 229–241.
   Google Scholar
• Venables, W.N., and Ripley, B.D. (2002), Modern Applied Statistics with S, New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Welch, B.L. (1937), On the z-Test in Randomized Blocks and Latin Squares, Biometrika, 29, 21–52.
   Google Scholar
• Wolfe, D.A. (1974), A Characterization of Population Weighted Symmetry and Related Results, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69, 819–822.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu, B.B., Gastwirth, J.L. (2005), Sensitivity Analysis for Trend Tests: Application to the Risk of Radiation Exposure, Biostatistics, 6, 201–209.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zubizarreta, J.R., Cerdá, M., Rosenbaum, P.R. (2013), Effect of the 2010 Chilean Earthquake on Posttraumatic Stress: Reducing Sensitivity to Unmeasured Bias Through Study Design, Epidemiology, 24, 79–87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar