Analysis resources

Causal inference for N-of-1 trials

The aim of personalized medicine is to tailor treatment decisions to individuals' characteristics. N-of-1 trials are within-person crossover trials that hold the promise of targeting individual-specific effects. While the idea behind N-of-1 trials might seem simple, analyzing and interpreting N-of-1 trials is not straightforward. Here we ground N-of-1 trials in a formal causal inference framework and formalize intuitive claims from the N-of-1 trials literature. We focus on causal inference from a single N-of-1 trial and define a conditional average treatment effect (CATE) that represents a target in this setting, which we call the U-CATE. We discuss assumptions sufficient for identification and estimation of the U-CATE under different causal models where the treatment schedule is assigned at baseline. A simple mean difference is an unbiased, asymptotically normal estimator of the U-CATE in simple settings. We also consider settings where carryover effects, trends over time, time-varying common causes of the outcome, and outcome-outcome effects are present. In these more complex settings, we show that a time-varying g-formula identifies the U-CATE under explicit assumptions. Finally, we analyze data from N-of-1 trials about acne symptoms and show how different assumptions about the data generating process can lead to different analytical strategies.

The n-of-1 randomized controlled trial: clinical usefulness. Our three-year experience - PubMed

We interpret the results as supporting the feasibility and usefulness of n-of-1 trials in clinical practice.

OSF

Small Sample Size Solutions | A Guide for Applied Researchers and Prac

Researchers often have difficulties collecting enough data to test their hypotheses, either because target groups are small or hard to access, or because data

The analysis of continuous data from n-of-1 trials using paired cycles: a simple tutorial - Trials

N-of-1 trials are defined and the popular paired cycle design is introduced, together with an explanation as to how suitable sequences may be constructed.Various approaches to analysing such trials are explained and illustrated using a simulated data set. It is explained how choosing an appropriate analysis depends on the question one wishes to answer. It is also shown that for a given question, various equivalent approaches to analysis can be found, a fact which may be exploited to expand the possible software routines that may be used.Sets of N-of-1 trials are analogous to sets of parallel group trials. This means that software for carrying out meta-analysis can be used to combine results from N-of-1 trials. In doing so, it is necessary to make one important change, however. Because degrees of freedom for estimating variances for individual subjects will be scarce, it is advisable to estimate local standard errors using pooled variances. How this may be done is explained and fixed and random effect approaches to combining results are illustrated.

Anytime-valid inference in N-of-1 trials

App-based N-of-1 trials offer a scalable experimental design for assessing the effects of health interventions at an individual level. Their practical success depends on the strong motivation of participants, which, in turn, translates into high adherence and reduced loss to follow-up. One way to maintain participant engagement is by sharing their interim results. Continuously testing hypotheses during a trial, known as "peeking", can also lead to shorter, lower-risk trials by detecting strong effects early. Nevertheless, traditionally, results are only presented upon the trial's conclusion. In this work, we introduce a potential outcomes framework that permits interim peeking of the results and enables statistically valid inferences to be drawn at any point during N-of-1 trials. Our work builds on the growing literature on valid confidence sequences, which enables anytime-valid inference with uniform type-1 error guarantees over time. We propose several causal estimands for treatment effects applicable in an N-of-1 trial and demonstrate, through empirical evaluation, that the proposed approach results in valid confidence sequences over time. We anticipate that incorporating anytime-valid inference into clinical trials can significantly enhance trial participation and empower participants.