Literature DB >> 29982600

Reflection on modern methods: selection bias-a review of recent developments.

Claire Infante-Rivard1, Alexandre Cusson2.   

Abstract

Selection bias remains a more difficult bias to understand than confounding or measurement error. Past definitions have not always been illuminating and a simple method (such as the change-in-estimate method for confounding) has not been available to determine its presence and magnitude in the study sample. A better understanding of the nature of the bias has led to the definition of endogenous selection bias. It is the result of conditioning on a collider variable, itself caused by two other variables; the latter variables become spuriously associated. Conditioning on a variable in the analysis that is a collider or on an indicator of sample selection has the same effect. Note that selection bias is possible even in the absence of a collider, but in the presence of endogenous selection bias, the concern is whether it is possible to identify a causal effect in the sample. Conditions have been outlined to determine that. However, even if conditions are met to identify a causal effect in the study sample, its generalization to a defined target population is not a given.We discuss the concept of endogeneity and the sources of endogenous selection bias in observational studies. We then briefly address the terms generalizability, target population (or alternative formulations) and transportability. We outline the explicit conditions to identify causal effects in studies affected by selection bias: they involve exchangeability between exposed and unexposed and exchangeability between sampled and unsampled. We briefly describe methods to generalize estimated causal effects to the target population. The latter usually require data from the target population. Finally we discuss sensitivity analyses; some are limited to providing an indication of the presence and direction of the bias and others can provide corrected estimates with user-supplied selection bias parameters.

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29982600     DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyy138

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0300-5771            Impact factor:   7.196


  18 in total

1.  Selection bias can creep into unselected cohorts and produce counterintuitive findings.

Authors:  Steven D Stovitz; Hailey R Banack; Jay S Kaufman
Journal:  Int J Obes (Lond)       Date:  2020-11-25       Impact factor: 5.095

Review 2.  Toward a better understanding about real-world evidence.

Authors:  Mei Liu; Yana Qi; Wen Wang; Xin Sun
Journal:  Eur J Hosp Pharm       Date:  2021-12-02

3.  18-year change in serum intact fibroblast growth factor 23 from midlife to late life and risk of mortality: the ARIC Study.

Authors:  Junichi Ishigami; Yasuyuki Honda; Amy B Karger; Josef Coresh; Elizabeth Selvin; Pamela L Lutsey; Kunihiro Matsushita
Journal:  Eur J Endocrinol       Date:  2022-05-12       Impact factor: 6.558

4.  Toward a Clearer Definition of Selection Bias When Estimating Causal Effects.

Authors:  Haidong Lu; Stephen R Cole; Chanelle J Howe; Daniel Westreich
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2022-06-06       Impact factor: 4.860

5.  Long-term use of hydrocodone vs. oxycodone in primary care.

Authors:  Rebecca Arden Harris; Henry R Kranzler; Kyong-Mi Chang; Chyke A Doubeni; Robert Gross
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2019-11-02       Impact factor: 4.852

6.  Assessment of potential selection bias in neuroimaging studies of postoperative delirium and cognitive decline: lessons from the SAGES study.

Authors:  Michele Cavallari; Tamara G Fong; Alexandra Touroutoglou; Bradford C Dickerson; Eva Schmitt; Thomas G Travison; Edward R Marcantonio; Long H Ngo; Towia Libermann; Alvaro Pascual-Leone; Mouhsin M Shafi; Sharon K Inouye; Richard N Jones
Journal:  Brain Imaging Behav       Date:  2022-03-12       Impact factor: 3.224

7.  Quantification of selection bias in studies of risk factors for birth defects among livebirths.

Authors:  Dominique Heinke; Janet W Rich-Edwards; Paige L Williams; Sonia Hernandez-Diaz; Marlene Anderka; Sarah C Fisher; Tania A Desrosiers; Gary M Shaw; Paul A Romitti; Mark A Canfield; Mahsa M Yazdy
Journal:  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol       Date:  2020-04-06       Impact factor: 3.103

8.  The effectiveness of conservative interventions for the management of syndromic hypermobility: a systematic literature review.

Authors:  Shea Palmer; Indi Davey; Laura Oliver; Amara Preece; Laura Sowerby; Sophie House
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2020-07-17       Impact factor: 2.980

9.  Uncovering survivorship bias in longitudinal mental health surveys during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors:  Mark É Czeisler; Joshua F Wiley; Charles A Czeisler; Shantha M W Rajaratnam; Mark E Howard
Journal:  Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci       Date:  2021-05-26       Impact factor: 6.892

10.  A novel framework for classification of selection processes in epidemiological research.

Authors:  Jonas Björk; Anton Nilsson; Carl Bonander; Ulf Strömberg
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2020-06-15       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.