Fallibility in estimating direct effects
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 1 February 2002
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in International Journal of Epidemiology
- Vol. 31 (1) , 163-165
- https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/31.1.163
Abstract
We use causal graphs and a partly hypothetical example from the Physicians' Health Study to explain why a common standard method for quantifying direct effects (i.e. stratifying on the intermediate variable) may be flawed. Estimating direct effects without bias requires that two assumptions hold, namely the absence of unmeasured confounding for (1) exposure and outcome, and (2) the intermediate variable and outcome. Recommendations include collecting and incorporating potential confounders for the causal effect of the mediator on the outcome, as well as the causal effect of the exposure on the outcome, and clearly stating the additional assumption that there is no unmeasured confounding for the causal effect of the mediator on the outcome.Keywords
This publication has 8 references indexed in Scilit:
- Data, Design, and Background Knowledge in Etiologic InferenceEpidemiology, 2001
- Marginal Structural Models and Causal Inference in EpidemiologyEpidemiology, 2000
- Causal Diagrams for Epidemiologic ResearchEpidemiology, 1999
- Causal diagrams for empirical researchBiometrika, 1995
- Identifiability and Exchangeability for Direct and Indirect EffectsEpidemiology, 1992
- Final Report on the Aspirin Component of the Ongoing Physicians' Health StudyNew England Journal of Medicine, 1989
- The control of confounding by intermediate variablesStatistics in Medicine, 1989
- A new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with a sustained exposure period—application to control of the healthy worker survivor effectMathematical Modelling, 1986