Literature DB >> 28169934

Instrumental Variable Analyses and Selection Bias.

Chelsea Canan1, Catherine Lesko, Bryan Lau.   

Abstract

Instrumental variables (IV) are used to draw causal conclusions about the effect of exposure E on outcome Y in the presence of unmeasured confounders. IV assumptions have been well described: (1) IV affects E; (2) IV affects Y only through E; (3) IV shares no common cause with Y. Even when these assumptions are met, biased effect estimates can result if selection bias allows a noncausal path from E to Y. We demonstrate the presence of bias in IV analyses on a sample from a simulated dataset, where selection into the sample was a collider on a noncausal path from E to Y. By applying inverse probability of selection weights, we were able to eliminate the selection bias. IV approaches may protect against unmeasured confounding but are not immune from selection bias. Inverse probability of selection weights used with IV approaches can minimize bias.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28169934      PMCID: PMC5378646          DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000639

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


  14 in total

1.  An introduction to instrumental variables for epidemiologists.

Authors:  S Greenland
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 7.196

2.  Instruments for causal inference: an epidemiologist's dream?

Authors:  Miguel A Hernán; James M Robins
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 4.822

Review 3.  Econometrics in outcomes research: the use of instrumental variables.

Authors:  J P Newhouse; M McClellan
Journal:  Annu Rev Public Health       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 21.981

4.  Selecting on treatment: a pervasive form of bias in instrumental variable analyses.

Authors:  Sonja A Swanson; James M Robins; Matthew Miller; Miguel A Hernán
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2015-01-21       Impact factor: 4.897

5.  Mendelian randomization studies in the elderly.

Authors:  Anna G C Boef; Saskia le Cessie; Olaf M Dekkers
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 4.822

6.  Commentary: how to report instrumental variable analyses (suggestions welcome).

Authors:  Sonja A Swanson; Miguel A Hernán
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 4.822

7.  Selection Bias Due to Loss to Follow Up in Cohort Studies.

Authors:  Chanelle J Howe; Stephen R Cole; Bryan Lau; Sonia Napravnik; Joseph J Eron
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 4.822

8.  Selection Bias When Using Instrumental Variable Methods to Compare Two Treatments But More Than Two Treatments Are Available.

Authors:  Ashkan Ertefaie; Dylan Small; James Flory; Sean Hennessy
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2016-05-01       Impact factor: 0.968

9.  Comparison of instrumental variable analysis using a new instrument with risk adjustment methods to reduce confounding by indication.

Authors:  Gang Fang; John M Brooks; Elizabeth A Chrischilles
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2012-04-17       Impact factor: 4.897

10.  A most stubborn bias: no adjustment method fully resolves confounding by indication in observational studies.

Authors:  Jaclyn L F Bosco; Rebecca A Silliman; Soe Soe Thwin; Ann M Geiger; Diana S M Buist; Marianne N Prout; Marianne Ulcickas Yood; Reina Haque; Feifei Wei; Timothy L Lash
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2009-05-19       Impact factor: 6.437

View more
  12 in total

1.  Alcohol consumption and lung cancer risk: A pooled analysis from the International Lung Cancer Consortium and the SYNERGY study.

Authors:  Darren R Brenner; Gord Fehringer; Zuo-Feng Zhang; Yuan-Chin Amy Lee; Travis Meyers; Keitaro Matsuo; Hidemi Ito; Paolo Vineis; Isabelle Stucker; Paolo Boffetta; Paul Brennan; David C Christiani; Nancy Diao; Yun-Chul Hong; Maria T Landi; Hal Morgenstern; Ann G Schwartz; Gad Rennert; Walid Saliba; John R McLaughlin; Curtis C Harris; Irene Orlow; Juan M Barros Dios; Alberto Ruano Raviña; Jack Siemiatycki; Anita Koushik; Michele Cote; Philip Lazarus; Guillermo Fernandez-Tardon; Adonina Tardon; Loïc Le Marchand; Hermann Brenner; Kai-Uwe Saum; Eric J Duell; Angeline S Andrew; Dario Consonni; Ann Olsson; Rayjean J Hung; Kurt Straif
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol       Date:  2018-11-13       Impact factor: 2.984

2.  Selection Bias When Estimating Average Treatment Effects Using One-sample Instrumental Variable Analysis.

Authors:  Rachael A Hughes; Neil M Davies; George Davey Smith; Kate Tilling
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 4.822

Review 3.  Instrumental Variable Analyses in Pharmacoepidemiology: What Target Trials Do We Emulate?

Authors:  Sonja A Swanson
Journal:  Curr Epidemiol Rep       Date:  2017-10-17

4.  The Causal Effects of Education on Health Outcomes in the UK Biobank.

Authors:  Neil M Davies; Matt Dickson; George Davey Smith; Gerard J van den Berg; Frank Windmeijer
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2018-01-29

5.  Contextualizing selection bias in Mendelian randomization: how bad is it likely to be?

Authors:  Apostolos Gkatzionis; Stephen Burgess
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2019-06-01       Impact factor: 7.196

6.  Impact of nonrandom selection mechanisms on the causal effect estimation for two-sample Mendelian randomization methods.

Authors:  Yuanyuan Yu; Lei Hou; Xu Shi; Xiaoru Sun; Xinhui Liu; Yifan Yu; Zhongshang Yuan; Hongkai Li; Fuzhong Xue
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2022-03-17       Impact factor: 5.917

Review 7.  Understanding the Assumptions Underlying Instrumental Variable Analyses: a Brief Review of Falsification Strategies and Related Tools.

Authors:  Jeremy Labrecque; Sonja A Swanson
Journal:  Curr Epidemiol Rep       Date:  2018-06-22

8.  Survival Bias in Mendelian Randomization Studies: A Threat to Causal Inference.

Authors:  Roelof A J Smit; Stella Trompet; Olaf M Dekkers; J Wouter Jukema; Saskia le Cessie
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 4.822

9.  Application of the Instrumental Inequalities to a Mendelian Randomization Study With Multiple Proposed Instruments.

Authors:  Elizabeth W Diemer; Jeremy Labrecque; Henning Tiemeier; Sonja A Swanson
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 4.822

Review 10.  Mendelian randomisation approaches to the study of prenatal exposures: A systematic review.

Authors:  Elizabeth W Diemer; Jeremy A Labrecque; Alexander Neumann; Henning Tiemeier; Sonja A Swanson
Journal:  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol       Date:  2020-08-11       Impact factor: 3.980

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.