Literature DB >> 34371103

Tutorial on directed acyclic graphs.

Jean C Digitale1, Jeffrey N Martin1, Medellena Maria Glymour2.   

Abstract

Directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) are an intuitive yet rigorous tool to communicate about causal questions in clinical and epidemiologic research and inform study design and statistical analysis. DAGs are constructed to depict prior knowledge about biological and behavioral systems related to specific causal research questions. DAG components portray who receives treatment or experiences exposures; mechanisms by which treatments and exposures operate; and other factors that influence the outcome of interest or which persons are included in an analysis. Once assembled, DAGs - via a few simple rules - guide the researcher in identifying whether the causal effect of interest can be identified without bias and, if so, what must be done either in study design or data analysis to achieve this. Specifically, DAGs can identify variables that, if controlled for in the design or analysis phase, are sufficient to eliminate confounding and some forms of selection bias. DAGs also help recognize variables that, if controlled for, bias the analysis (e.g., mediators or factors influenced by both exposure and outcome). Finally, DAGs help researchers recognize insidious sources of bias introduced by selection of individuals into studies or failure to completely observe all individuals until study outcomes are reached. DAGs, however, are not infallible, largely owing to limitations in prior knowledge about the system in question. In such instances, several alternative DAGs are plausible, and researchers should assess whether results differ meaningfully across analyses guided by different DAGs and be forthright about uncertainty. DAGs are powerful tools to guide the conduct of clinical research.
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34371103      PMCID: PMC8821727          DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.08.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  15 in total

1.  Causal knowledge as a prerequisite for confounding evaluation: an application to birth defects epidemiology.

Authors:  Miguel A Hernán; Sonia Hernández-Díaz; Martha M Werler; Allen A Mitchell
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2002-01-15       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  A structural approach to selection bias.

Authors:  Miguel A Hernán; Sonia Hernández-Díaz; James M Robins
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 4.822

Review 3.  Mendelian randomization as an instrumental variable approach to causal inference.

Authors:  Vanessa Didelez; Nuala Sheehan
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 3.021

4.  Causal diagrams for epidemiologic research.

Authors:  S Greenland; J Pearl; J M Robins
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 4.822

5.  The birth weight "paradox" uncovered?

Authors:  Sonia Hernández-Díaz; Enrique F Schisterman; Miguel A Hernán
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2006-08-24       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  Biases in Randomized Trials: A Conversation Between Trialists and Epidemiologists.

Authors:  Mohammad Ali Mansournia; Julian P T Higgins; Jonathan A C Sterne; Miguel A Hernán
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 4.822

7.  Causal directed acyclic graphs and the direction of unmeasured confounding bias.

Authors:  Tyler J VanderWeele; Miguel A Hernán; James M Robins
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 4.822

8.  A directed acyclic graph for interactions.

Authors:  Anton Nilsson; Carl Bonander; Ulf Strömberg; Jonas Björk
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2021-05-17       Impact factor: 7.196

9.  Association Between Congenital Cytomegalovirus and the Prevalence at Birth of Microcephaly in the United States.

Authors:  Chelsea J Messinger; Marc Lipsitch; Brian T Bateman; Mengdong He; Krista F Huybrechts; Sarah MacDonald; Helen Mogun; Katrina Mott; Sonia Hernández-Díaz
Journal:  JAMA Pediatr       Date:  2020-12-01       Impact factor: 16.193

10.  Appropriate inclusion of interactions was needed to avoid bias in multiple imputation.

Authors:  Kate Tilling; Elizabeth J Williamson; Michael Spratt; Jonathan A C Sterne; James R Carpenter
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2016-07-19       Impact factor: 6.437

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  COVID-19 and the eye: alternative facts The 2022 Bowman Club, David L. Easty lecture.

Authors:  Lawson Ung; James Chodosh
Journal:  BMJ Open Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-05

2.  Timing of adjuvant chemotherapy initiation and mortality among colon cancer patients at a safety-net health system.

Authors:  Yan Lu; Aaron W Gehr; Rachel J Meadows; Bassam Ghabach; Latha Neerukonda; Kalyani Narra; Rohit P Ojha
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2022-05-31       Impact factor: 4.638

3.  Acceptability and feasibility of leveraging community-based HIV counselling and testing platforms for same-day oral PrEP initiation among adolescent girls and young women in Eastern Cape, South Africa.

Authors:  Andrew Medina-Marino; Dana Bezuidenhout; Phuti Ngwepe; Charl Bezuidenhout; Shelley N Facente; Selly Mabandla; Sybil Hosek; Francesca Little; Connie L Celum; Linda-Gail Bekker
Journal:  J Int AIDS Soc       Date:  2022-07       Impact factor: 6.707

4.  Harm of early dexamethasone for COVID-19 and bias in randomized trials.

Authors:  Isaac Núñez; Yanink Caro-Vega; Adrian Soto-Mota
Journal:  Eur J Intern Med       Date:  2022-09-19       Impact factor: 7.749

5.  Race (black-white) and sex inequalities in tooth loss: A population-based study.

Authors:  Lívia Helena Terra E Souza; Fredi Alexander Diaz-Quijano; Marilisa Berti de Azevedo Barros; Margareth Guimarães Lima
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-10-13       Impact factor: 3.752

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.