Literature DB >> 35700187

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

Haidong Lu1, Stephen R Cole2, Chanelle J Howe3, Daniel Westreich2.   

Abstract

Selection bias remains a subject of controversy. Existing definitions of selection bias are ambiguous. To improve communication and the conduct of epidemiologic research focused on estimating causal effects, we propose to unify the various existing definitions of selection bias in the literature by considering any bias away from the true causal effect in the referent population (the population before the selection process), due to selecting the sample from the referent population, as selection bias. Given this unified definition, selection bias can be further categorized into two broad types: type 1 selection bias owing to restricting to one or more level(s) of a collider (or a descendant of a collider) and type 2 selection bias owing to restricting to one or more level(s) of an effect measure modifier. To aid in explaining these two types-which can co-occur-we start by reviewing the concepts of the target population, the study sample, and the analytic sample. Then, we illustrate both types of selection bias using causal diagrams. In addition, we explore the differences between these two types of selection bias, and describe methods to minimize selection bias. Finally, we use an example of "M-bias" to demonstrate the advantage of classifying selection bias into these two types.
Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35700187      PMCID: PMC9378569          DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001516

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Epidemiology        ISSN: 1044-3983            Impact factor:   4.860


  35 in total

1.  Quantifying biases in causal models: classical confounding vs collider-stratification bias.

Authors:  Sander Greenland
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 4.822

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

3.  Toward Causal Inference With Interference.

Authors:  Michael G Hudgens; M Elizabeth Halloran
Journal:  J Am Stat Assoc       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 5.033

4.  When Is a Complete-Case Approach to Missing Data Valid? The Importance of Effect-Measure Modification.

Authors:  Rachael K Ross; Alexander Breskin; Daniel Westreich
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2020-12-01       Impact factor: 4.897

5.  Invited Commentary: Selection Bias Without Colliders.

Authors:  Miguel A Hernán
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  Target Validity and the Hierarchy of Study Designs.

Authors:  Daniel Westreich; Jessie K Edwards; Catherine R Lesko; Stephen R Cole; Elizabeth A Stuart
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2019-02-01       Impact factor: 4.897

7.  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

8.  On the Relation Between G-formula and Inverse Probability Weighting Estimators for Generalizing Trial Results.

Authors:  Issa J Dahabreh; Sarah E Robertson; Miguel A Hernán
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 4.822

9.  Generalizing evidence from randomized clinical trials to target populations: The ACTG 320 trial.

Authors:  Stephen R Cole; Elizabeth A Stuart
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2010-06-14       Impact factor: 4.897

10.  On the causal interpretation of race in regressions adjusting for confounding and mediating variables.

Authors:  Tyler J VanderWeele; Whitney R Robinson
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 4.822

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.