Literature DB >> 23100247

Implications of M bias in epidemiologic studies: a simulation study.

Wei Liu1, M Alan Brookhart, Sebastian Schneeweiss, Xiaojuan Mi, Soko Setoguchi.   

Abstract

Collider-stratification bias arises from conditioning on a variable (collider) which opens a path from exposure to outcome. M bias occurs when the collider-stratification bias is transmitted through ancestors of exposure and outcome. Previous theoretical work, but not empirical data, has demonstrated that M bias is smaller than confounding bias. The authors simulated data for large cohort studies with binary exposure, an outcome, a collider, and 2 predictors of the collider. They created 178 scenarios by changing the frequencies of variables and/or the magnitudes of associations among the variables. They calculated the effect estimate, percentage bias, and mean squared error. M bias in these realistic scenarios ranged from -2% to -5%. When the authors increased one or both relative risks for the relation between the collider and unmeasured factors to ≥8, the negative bias was more substantial (>15%). The result was substantially biased (e.g., >20%) if an unmeasured confounder that was also a collider was not adjusted to avoid M bias. In scenarios resembling those the authors examined, M bias had a small impact unless associations between the collider and unmeasured confounders were very large (relative risk > 8). When a collider is itself an important confounder, controlling for confounding would take precedence over avoiding M bias.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23100247     DOI: 10.1093/aje/kws165

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0002-9262            Impact factor:   4.897


  32 in total

1.  Evaluating performance of risk identification methods through a large-scale simulation of observational data.

Authors:  Patrick B Ryan; Martijn J Schuemie
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 5.606

2.  Can Survival Bias Explain the Age Attenuation of Racial Inequalities in Stroke Incidence?: A Simulation Study.

Authors:  Elizabeth Rose Mayeda; Hailey R Banack; Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; Adina Zeki Al Hazzouri; Jessica R Marden; Rachel A Whitmer; M Maria Glymour
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 4.822

3.  Constructing Causal Diagrams for Common Perinatal Outcomes: Benefits, Limitations and Motivating Examples with Maternal Antidepressant Use in Pregnancy.

Authors:  Gretchen Bandoli; Kristin Palmsten; Katrina F Flores; Christina D Chambers
Journal:  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol       Date:  2016-05-10       Impact factor: 3.980

4.  Theory meets practice: a commentary on VanderWeele's 'principles of confounder selection'.

Authors:  Sebastian Schneeweiss
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2019-03-06       Impact factor: 8.082

5.  Restriction of Pharmacoepidemiologic Cohorts to Initiators of Medications in Unrelated Preventive Drug Classes to Reduce Confounding by Frailty in Older Adults.

Authors:  Henry T Zhang; Leah J McGrath; Alan R Ellis; Richard Wyss; Jennifer L Lund; Til Stürmer
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  Controlling for Informed Presence Bias Due to the Number of Health Encounters in an Electronic Health Record.

Authors:  Benjamin A Goldstein; Nrupen A Bhavsar; Matthew Phelan; Michael J Pencina
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2016-11-16       Impact factor: 4.897

7.  Educational Note: Paradoxical collider effect in the analysis of non-communicable disease epidemiological data: a reproducible illustration and web application.

Authors:  Miguel Angel Luque-Fernandez; Michael Schomaker; Daniel Redondo-Sanchez; Maria Jose Sanchez Perez; Anand Vaidya; Mireille E Schnitzer
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2019-04-01       Impact factor: 7.196

8.  Evaluation of Selection Bias in an Internet-based Study of Pregnancy Planners.

Authors:  Elizabeth E Hatch; Kristen A Hahn; Lauren A Wise; Ellen M Mikkelsen; Ramya Kumar; Matthew P Fox; Daniel R Brooks; Anders H Riis; Henrik Toft Sorensen; Kenneth J Rothman
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 4.822

9.  The Obesity Paradox in Survival after Cancer Diagnosis: Tools for Evaluation of Potential Bias.

Authors:  Elizabeth Rose Mayeda; M Maria Glymour
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 10.  Avoiding selection bias in metabolomics studies: a tutorial.

Authors:  S C Boone; S le Cessie; K Willems van Dijk; R de Mutsert; D O Mook-Kanamori
Journal:  Metabolomics       Date:  2019-01-03       Impact factor: 4.290

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.