Computing assumption-lean bounds for per-protocol effects

A common approach used to estimate per-protocol effects, or the effect of perfect adherence to a defined protocol on a specified outcome, is to artificially censor individuals when they deviate from the protocol. As adherence is not under control of the investigator, selection bias is a threat to the validity of per-protocol analyses. Here, we describe nonparametric bounds for the per-protocol effect. Importantly, these bounds describe the range of all possible per-protocol effects concordant with the observed data under the sole additional assumption—beyond those of a standard intent-to-treat analysis—that adherence was accurately measured. Further, these bounds naturally follow from an intuitive understanding of the “best” and “worst” cases among trial participants. Finally, the per-protocol bounds are straightforward to compute with standard statistical analysis software. We describe and illustrate these bounds with two open-source data sets, one in the context of a binary outcome and the other with a survival outcome. These examples are accompanied by open-source code in several different software programs to aid implementation. Per-protocol bounds offer a simple and intuitive assessment of the per-protocol effect under relatively weak assumptions and offer insight into the strength of the assumptions like no selection bias.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Trials
Published
2026-07-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-026-09927-6
Primary Topic
Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Computing assumption-lean bounds for per-protocol effects

Jessie K. Edwards, Valerie Lucas, Stephen R. Cole, Paul N Zivich et al.
Trials
Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
article

Computing assumption-lean bounds for per-protocol effects

Jessie K. Edwards, Valerie Lucas, Stephen R. Cole, Paul N Zivich, Bonnie E. Shook-Sa, M. Alan Brookhart
article en

Abstract

A common approach used to estimate per-protocol effects, or the effect of perfect adherence to a defined protocol on a specified outcome, is to artificially censor individuals when they deviate from the protocol. As adherence is not under control of the investigator, selection bias is a threat to the validity of per-protocol analyses. Here, we describe nonparametric bounds for the per-protocol effect. Importantly, these bounds describe the range of all possible per-protocol effects concordant with the observed data under the sole additional assumption—beyond those of a standard intent-to-treat analysis—that adherence was accurately measured. Further, these bounds naturally follow from an intuitive understanding of the “best” and “worst” cases among trial participants. Finally, the per-protocol bounds are straightforward to compute with standard statistical analysis software. We describe and illustrate these bounds with two open-source data sets, one in the context of a binary outcome and the other with a survival outcome. These examples are accompanied by open-source code in several different software programs to aid implementation. Per-protocol bounds offer a simple and intuitive assessment of the per-protocol effect under relatively weak assumptions and offer insight into the strength of the assumptions like no selection bias.

Trials
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US), Duke University (US), University of Oxford (GB)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.