Literature DB >> 18482060

Sensitivity analysis: distributional assumptions and confounding assumptions.

Tyler J Vanderweele1.   

Abstract

In a presentation of various methods for assessing the sensitivity of regression results to unmeasured confounding, Lin, Psaty, and Kronmal (1998, Biometrics54, 948-963) use a conditional independence assumption to derive algebraic relationships between the true exposure effect and the apparent exposure effect in a reduced model that does not control for the unmeasured confounding variable. However, Hernán and Robins (1999, Biometrics55, 1316-1317) have noted that if the measured covariates and the unmeasured confounder both affect the exposure of interest then the principal conditional independence assumption that is used to derive these algebraic relationships cannot hold. One particular result of Lin et al. does not rely on the conditional independence assumption but only on assumptions concerning additivity. It can be shown that this assumption is satisfied for an entire family of distributions even if both the measured covariates and the unmeasured confounder affect the exposure of interest. These considerations clarify the appropriate contexts in which relevant sensitivity analysis techniques can be applied.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18482060     DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2008.01024.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biometrics        ISSN: 0006-341X            Impact factor:   2.571


  13 in total

1.  Molecular association of pathogenetic contributors to pre-eclampsia (pre-eclampsia associome).

Authors:  Andrey S Glotov; Evgeny S Tiys; Elena S Vashukova; Vladimir S Pakin; Pavel S Demenkov; Olga V Saik; Timofey V Ivanisenko; Olga N Arzhanova; Elena V Mozgovaya; Marina S Zainulina; Nikolay A Kolchanov; Vladislav S Baranov; Vladimir A Ivanisenko
Journal:  BMC Syst Biol       Date:  2015-04-15

2.  Nonparametric Bounds and Sensitivity Analysis of Treatment Effects.

Authors:  Amy Richardson; Michael G Hudgens; Peter B Gilbert; Jason P Fine
Journal:  Stat Sci       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 2.901

3.  Bias formulas for sensitivity analysis for direct and indirect effects.

Authors:  Tyler J VanderWeele
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 4.822

4.  Causal inference in randomized clinical trials.

Authors:  Cheng Zheng; Ran Dai; Robert Peter Gale; Mei-Jie Zhang
Journal:  Bone Marrow Transplant       Date:  2019-03-26       Impact factor: 5.483

5.  The Combined Effects of Measurement Error and Omitting Confounders in the Single-Mediator Model.

Authors:  Matthew S Fritz; David A Kenny; David P MacKinnon
Journal:  Multivariate Behav Res       Date:  2016 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.923

6.  Bias formulas for sensitivity analysis of unmeasured confounding for general outcomes, treatments, and confounders.

Authors:  Tyler J Vanderweele; Onyebuchi A Arah
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 4.822

Review 7.  A review of covariate selection for non-experimental comparative effectiveness research.

Authors:  Brian C Sauer; M Alan Brookhart; Jason Roy; Tyler VanderWeele
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2013-09-05       Impact factor: 2.890

8.  Investigating organizational quality improvement systems, patient empowerment, organizational culture, professional involvement and the quality of care in European hospitals: the 'Deepening our Understanding of Quality Improvement in Europe (DUQuE)' project.

Authors:  Oliver Groene; Niek Klazinga; Cordula Wagner; Onyebuchi A Arah; Andrew Thompson; Charles Bruneau; Rosa Suñol
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2010-09-24       Impact factor: 2.655

9.  EVALUATING COSTS WITH UNMEASURED CONFOUNDING: A SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR THE TREATMENT EFFECT.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Handorf; Justin E Bekelman; Daniel F Heitjan; Nandita Mitra
Journal:  Ann Appl Stat       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 2.083

10.  Unmeasured confounding and hazard scales: sensitivity analysis for total, direct, and indirect effects.

Authors:  Tyler J VanderWeele
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2013-02-01       Impact factor: 8.082

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.