Bias formulas for sensitivity analysis of unmeasured confounding for general outcomes, treatments, and confounders

Epidemiology

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 42-52

  Vanderweele, Tyler J ^a   Arah, Onyebuchi A ^b,c  

^a HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EPIDEMIOLOGY; MATHEMATICAL PHENOMENA; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC ERROR;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 78650778119     PISSN: 10443983     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181f74493     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Kitagawa EM. Components of a difference between two rates. J Am Stat Assoc. 1955;50:1168-1194.
2. Cornfield J, Haenszel W, Hammond EC, Lilienfeld AM, Shimkin MB, Wynder LL. Smoking and lung cancer: recent evidence and a discussion of some questions. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1959;22:173-203.
3. Bross ID. Spurious effects from an extraneous variable. J Chronic Dis. 1966;19:637-647.
4. Schlesselman JJ. Assessing effects of confounding variables. Am J Epidemiol. 1978;108:3-8.
5. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical Methods in Cancer Research. Vol 1: The Analysis of Case-Control Studies. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 1980: chap 3.
6. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Assessing sensitivity to an unobserved binary covariate in an observational study with binary outcome. J R Stat Soc Series B. 1983;45:212-218.
7. Yanagawa T. Case-control studies: assessing the effect of a confounding factor. Biometrika. 1984;71:191-194.
8. Gail MH, Wacholder S, Lubin JH. Indirect corrections for confounding under multiplicative and additive risk models. Am J Ind Med. 1988;13: 119-130.
9. Flanders WD, Khoury MJ. Indirect assessment of confounding: graphic description and limits on effect of adjusting for covariates. Epidemiology. 1990;1:239-246.
10. Copas JB, Li HG. Inference for non-random samples. J R Stat Soc Series B. 1997;59:55-95.
11. Lin DY, Psaty BM, Kronmal RA. Assessing the sensitivity of regression results to unmeasured confounders in observational studies. Biometrics. 1998;54:948-963.
12. Robins JM, Scharfstein D, Rotnitzky A. Sensitivity analysis for selection bias and unmeasured confounding in missing data and causal inference models. In: Halloran E, Berry D, eds. Statistical Models for Epidemiology, the Environment, and Clinical Trials. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2000:1-95.
13. Rosenbaum PR. Observational Studies. 2nd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2002.
14. Imbens GW. Sensitivity to exogeneity assumptions in program evaluation. Am Econ Rev. 2003;93:126-132.
15. Greenland S. The impact of prior distributions for uncontrolled confounding and response bias: a case study of the relation of wire codes and magnetic fields to childhood leukemia. J Am Stat Assoc. 2003;98: 47-54.
16. Greenland S. Multiple-bias modeling for analysis of observational data (with discussion). J R Stat Soc Series A. 2005;168:267-308.
17. Brumback BA, Hernán MA, Haneuse SJ, et al. Sensitivity analyses for unmeasured confounding assuming a marginal structural model for repeated measures. Stat Med. 2004;23:749-767.
18. Stürmer T, Schneeweiss S, Avorn J, et al. Adjusting effect estimates for unmeasured confounding with validation data using propensity score calibration. Am J Epdiemiol. 2005;162:279-289.
19. McCandless LC, Gustafson P, Levy A. Bayesian sensitivity analysis for unmeasured confounding in observational studies. Stat Med. 2007;26: 2331-2347.
20. VanderWeele TJ. Sensitivity analysis: distributional assumptions and confounding assumptions. Biometrics. 2008;64:645-649.
21. Arah OA, Chiba Y, Greenland S. Bias formulas for external adjustment and sensitivity analysis of unmeasured confounders. Ann Epidemiol. 2008;18:637-646.
22. Lash TL, Fox MP, Fink AK. Applying Quantitative Bias Analysis to Epidemiologic Data. New York: Spring; 2009.
23. Manski CF. Nonparametric bounds on treatment effects. Am Econ Rev. 1990;80:319-323.
24. Manski CF. Monotone treatment response. Econometrica. 1997;65: 1311-1334.
25. Manski CF. Partial Identification of Probability Distributions. New York: Springer; 2003.
26. MacLehose RF, Kaufman S, Kaufman JS, et al. Bounding causal effects under uncontrolled confounding using counterfactuals. Epidemiology. 2005;16:548-555.
27. VanderWeele TJ. The sign of the bias of unmeasured confounding. Biometrics. 2008;64:702-706.
28. Rubin DB. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. J Educ Psychol. 1974;66:688-701.
29. Rubin DB. Bayesian inference for causal effects: the role of randomization. Ann Stat. 1978;6:34-58.
30. Rubin DB. Formal modes of statistical inference for causal effects. J Stat Plann Infer. 1990;25:279-292.
31. Cox DR. The Planning of Experiments. New York: Wiley; 1958.
32. Cox DR, McCullagh P. Some aspects of the analysis of covariance. Biometrics. 1982;38:541-561.
33. Pearl J. Causality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009.
34. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70:41-55.
35. Reinisch J, Sanders S, Mortensen E, et al. In-utero exposure to pheno-barbital and intelligence deficits in adult men. J Am Med Assoc. 1995; 274:1518-1525.
36. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Constructing a control group using multi- variate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Am Stat. 1985;39:33-38
37. Hernan MA, Robins JM. Estimating causal effects from epidemiologic data. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60:578-586.
38. Kotelchuck M. An evaluation of the Kessner adequacy of prenatal care index and a proposed adequacy of prenatal care utilization index. Am J Public Health. 1994;84:1414-1420. (Pubitemid 24290938)
39. VanderWeele TJ, Lantos JD, Siddique J, et al. A comparison of four prenatal care indices in birth outcome models: comparable results for predicting small-for-gestational-age outcome but different results for preterm birth or infant mortality. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:438-445.
40. Lambert D, Pregibon D. More bang for their bucks: assessing new features for online advertisers. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Data Mining and Audience Intelligence for Advertising; 2007; San Jose, CA: 7-15.
41. Robins JM, Rotnitzky A, Zhao LP. Estimation of regression coefficients when some regressors are not always observed. J Am Stat Assoc. 1994;89:846-866.
42. Bang H, Robins JM. Doubly robust estimation in missing data and causal inference models. Biometrics. 2005;61:692-972.
43. Tan Z. A distributional approach for causal inference using propensity scores. J Am Stat Assoc. 2006;101:1619-1637.
44. Cao W, Tsiatis AA, Davidian M. Improving efficiency and robustness of the doubly robust estimator for a population mean with incomplete data. Biometrika. 2009;96:723-734.
45. Hernan M, Robins JM. Assessing the sensitivity of regression results to unmeasured confounders in observational studies [letter]. Biometrics. 1999;55:1316-1317.
46. Lee WC, Wang LY. Simple formulas for gauging the potential impacts of population stratification bias. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;167:86-89.