Comparing randomized trials
Abstract
Disagreements between randomized trials that address the same causal question pose challenges for the interpretation and synthesis of evidence. We sketch a causal framework for comparing the results of randomized trials that explicitly accommodates the possibility of trial engagement effects. Using counterfactual outcomes defined under joint interventions on treatment assignment and trial-related actions, we compare trial-native treatment effects with the effects transported from one trial to the population of another in a common target population. We show that standard conditions for transporting treatment effects across trial populations are not sufficient to guarantee agreement between transported and trial-native effects. Agreement additionally requires conditions governing how trial-related actions affect outcome across studies - for example, absence of trial engagement effects, equivalence of such effects across trials, or lack of interaction between trial engagement and treatment assignment. Our framework clarifies potential sources of disagreement across trials and extends existing approaches to study comparison to settings in which trial engagement effects may be present.
Related
- Sample size determination for randomized decentralized clinical trials with longitudinal outcomes
- The Role of Assignment in Defining and Identifying Causal Effects in Randomized Trials
- Automated, Efficient, and Model-Free Inference for Randomized Clinical Trials via Data-Driven Covariate Adjustment
- Leveraging Large Language Models to Improve Precision in Randomized Controlled Trials
- Power-optimal allocation in multi-arm cluster randomized trials
BibTeX
@misc{chiu2026comparing,
title = {{Comparing randomized trials}},
author = {Yu-Han Chiu and Issa J. Dahabreh},
howpublished = {arXiv},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.48550/arxiv.2610.14895},
eprint = {2610.14895},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.14895},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Comparing randomized trials
AU - Yu-Han Chiu
AU - Issa J. Dahabreh
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/10
PB - arXiv
DO - 10.48550/arxiv.2610.14895
UR - https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.14895
AB - Disagreements between randomized trials that address the same causal question pose challenges for the interpretation and synthesis of evidence. We sketch a causal framework for comparing the results of randomized trials that explicitly accommodates the possibility of trial engagement effects. Using counterfactual outcomes defined under joint interventions on treatment assignment and trial-related actions, we compare trial-native treatment effects with the effects transported from one trial to the population of another in a common target population. We show that standard conditions for transporting treatment effects across trial populations are not sufficient to guarantee agreement between transported and trial-native effects. Agreement additionally requires conditions governing how trial-related actions affect outcome across studies - for example, absence of trial engagement effects, equivalence of such effects across trials, or lack of interaction between trial engagement and treatment assignment. Our framework clarifies potential sources of disagreement across trials and extends existing approaches to study comparison to settings in which trial engagement effects may be present.
ER -