Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 14, 2025

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
Statistical Methods to Adjust for Treatment Switching in Real-World Clinical Studies: A Scoping Review and
Romain Jonathan Collet1,2,3,4, Ângela Jornada Ben5, Anita Natalia Varga5,6
1Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract:
Real-world data from sources, such as patient registries and electronic health records, can complement randomized controlled trials by providing timely, generalizable insights that better reflect routine clinical practice. However, the absence of randomization can introduce bias, particularly when treatment switching-defined as deviation from or discontinuation of the initial treatment-is influenced by time-varying confounders, that is, variables that are associated with both treatment decisions and outcomes over time. This study presents a comprehensive overview of statistical methods used to adjust for treatment switching in real-world studies to improve causal inference. We systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase for studies comparing at least two statistical methods for adjusting for treatment switching, from inception to December 2024. Forty-five studies were included, identifying four main categories of methods: (1) traditional approaches (intention-to-treat, per-protocol, as-treated, repeated measures); (2) propensity score-based methods (adjustment, matching, marginal structural models); (3) g-methods other than marginal structural models (g-computation, structural nested models, longitudinal targeted maximum likelihood estimation); (4) methods addressing unmeasured confounding (regression calibration, instrumental variables). Traditional methods are straightforward, but often yield biased estimates in the presence of treatment switching. Advanced methods, such as g-methods, are designed to adjust for time-varying confounding and can produce less biased estimates, though they require complex modeling. Instrumental variables and regression calibration relax the assumption of no unmeasured confounding, but rely on strong, often untestable conditions. By evaluating each method's assumptions, strengths, and limitations, we support applied researchers in selecting appropriate methods to strengthen causal inference in real-world studies.
More Related Videos
08:36Author Spotlight: Evaluating the Adjuvant Efficacy and Safety of Angong Niuhuang Pill in Viral Encephalitis Treatment
Published on: April 19, 2024
04:53A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition
Published on: September 20, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Crossover Experiments
Crossover designs are performed even with smaller sample sizes since the samples can act as their controls. These are better than simple randomized trials since patients are exposed to all the treatments.
Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...
Blind Procedures
Regression Toward the Mean