Literature DB >> 21052008

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

Tyler J Vanderweele1, Onyebuchi A Arah.   

Abstract

Uncontrolled confounding in observational studies gives rise to biased effect estimates. Sensitivity analysis techniques can be useful in assessing the magnitude of these biases. In this paper, we use the potential outcomes framework to derive a general class of sensitivity-analysis formulas for outcomes, treatments, and measured and unmeasured confounding variables that may be categorical or continuous. We give results for additive, risk-ratio and odds-ratio scales. We show that these results encompass a number of more specific sensitivity-analysis methods in the statistics and epidemiology literature. The applicability, usefulness, and limits of the bias-adjustment formulas are discussed. We illustrate the sensitivity-analysis techniques that follow from our results by applying them to 3 different studies. The bias formulas are particularly simple and easy to use in settings in which the unmeasured confounding variable is binary with constant effect on the outcome across treatment levels.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21052008      PMCID: PMC3073860          DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181f74493

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Epidemiology        ISSN: 1044-3983            Impact factor:   4.822


  21 in total

Review 1.  Bounding causal effects under uncontrolled confounding using counterfactuals.

Authors:  Richard F MacLehose; Sol Kaufman; Jay S Kaufman; Charles Poole
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 4.822

2.  Estimating causal effects from epidemiological data.

Authors:  Miguel A Hernán; James M Robins
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 3.710

3.  Doubly robust estimation in missing data and causal inference models.

Authors:  Heejung Bang; James M Robins
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Bayesian sensitivity analysis for unmeasured confounding in observational studies.

Authors:  Lawrence C McCandless; Paul Gustafson; Adrian Levy
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2007-05-20       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  The sign of the bias of unmeasured confounding.

Authors:  Tyler J VanderWeele
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2007-12-31       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Assessing the sensitivity of regression results to unmeasured confounders in observational studies.

Authors:  D Y Lin; B M Psaty; R A Kronmal
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  An evaluation of the Kessner Adequacy of Prenatal Care Index and a proposed Adequacy of Prenatal Care Utilization Index.

Authors:  M Kotelchuck
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 9.308

8.  Improving efficiency and robustness of the doubly robust estimator for a population mean with incomplete data.

Authors:  Weihua Cao; Anastasios A Tsiatis; Marie Davidian
Journal:  Biometrika       Date:  2009-08-07       Impact factor: 2.445

9.  In utero exposure to phenobarbital and intelligence deficits in adult men.

Authors:  J M Reinisch; S A Sanders; E L Mortensen; D B Rubin
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-11-15       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  A comparison of four prenatal care indices in birth outcome models: comparable results for predicting small-for-gestational-age outcome but different results for preterm birth or infant mortality.

Authors:  Tyler J VanderWeele; John D Lantos; Juned Siddique; Diane S Lauderdale
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2008-10-22       Impact factor: 6.437

View more
  123 in total

1.  The association of educational attainment and SBP among older community-living adults: the Maintenance of Balance, Independent Living, Intellect and Zest in the Elderly (MOBILIZE) Boston Study.

Authors:  Dan K Kiely; Alden L Gross; Dae H Kim; Lewis A Lipsitz
Journal:  J Hypertens       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 4.844

2.  Genetic self knowledge and the future of epidemiologic confounding.

Authors:  Tyler J VanderWeele; Tyler Vander Weele
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2010-08-13       Impact factor: 11.025

Review 3.  Methodological challenges in mendelian randomization.

Authors:  Tyler J VanderWeele; Eric J Tchetgen Tchetgen; Marilyn Cornelis; Peter Kraft
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 4.822

4.  Religious Service Attendance and Lower Depression Among Women-a Prospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Shanshan Li; Olivia I Okereke; Shun-Chiao Chang; Ichiro Kawachi; Tyler J VanderWeele
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2016-12

5.  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

6.  All-cause, drug-related, and HIV-related mortality risk by trajectories of jail incarceration and homelessness among adults in New York City.

Authors:  Sungwoo Lim; Tiffany G Harris; Denis Nash; Mary Clare Lennon; Lorna E Thorpe
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2015-02-05       Impact factor: 4.897

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

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

8.  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

9.  An educational intervention to improve knowledge about prevention against occupational asthma and allergies using targeted maximum likelihood estimation.

Authors:  Daloha Rodríguez-Molina; Swaantje Barth; Ronald Herrera; Constanze Rossmann; Katja Radon; Veronika Karnowski
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  2019-01-14       Impact factor: 3.015

10.  Using an instrumental variable to test for unmeasured confounding.

Authors:  Zijian Guo; Jing Cheng; Scott A Lorch; Dylan S Small
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2014-06-15       Impact factor: 2.373

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.