Sensitivity analysis for interactions under unmeasured confounding

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 31, Issue 22, 2012, Pages 2552-2564

  Vanderweele, Tyler J ^a   Mukherjee, Bhramar ^b   Chen, Jinbo ^c  

^a HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Bias analysis; Gene environment; Independence; Interaction; Sensitivity analysis; Unmeasured confounding

Indexed keywords

ARSENIC; GLUTATHIONE TRANSFERASE;

AIR POLLUTION; ARTICLE; CANCER RISK; CASE CONTROL STUDY; CONFOUNDING VARIABLE; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; GENE ENVIRONMENT INDEPENDENCE; GENOTYPE ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION; HEREDITY; HUMAN; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; LUNG CANCER; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PASSIVE SMOKING; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SKIN DEFECT; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION; STATISTICAL PARAMETERS; SUN EXPOSURE;

ARSENIC POISONING; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); BODY MASS INDEX; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; GLUTATHIONE TRANSFERASE; HUMANS; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PRECANCEROUS CONDITIONS; TOBACCO SMOKE POLLUTION;

EID: 84866180516     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.4354     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Cornfield J, Haenszel W, Hammond EC, Lilienfeld AM, Shimkin MB, Wynder LL. Smoking and lung cancer: recent evidence and a discussion of some questions. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1959;22:173-203.
2. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Assessing sensitivity to an unobserved binary covariate in an observational study with binary outcome. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B 1983;45:212-218.
3. Flanders WD, Khoury MJ. Indirect assessment of confounding: graphic description and limits on effect of adjusting for covariates. Epidemiology 1990;1:239-246.
4. Lin DY, Psaty BM, Kronmal RA. Assessing the sensitivity of regression results to unmeasured confounders in observational studies. Biometrics 1998;54:948-963.
5. Robins JM, Scharfstein D, Rotnitzky A. Sensitivity analysis for selection bias and unmeasured confounding in missing data and causal inference models. InStatistical Models for Epidemiology, the Environment, and Clinical Trials, Halloran E, Berry D (eds).Springer-Verlag:New York, 2000;1-95.
6. Rosenbaum PR. Observational Studies, 2nd edn.Springer-Verlag:New York, 2002.
7. VanderWeele TJ, Arah OA. Bias formulas for sensitivity analysis of unmeasured confounding for general outcomes, treatments and confounders. Epidemiology 2011;22:42-52.
8. Rubin DB. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology 1974;66:688-701.
9. Neyman J. Sur les applications de la thar des probabilities aux experiences Agaricales: essay des principle. (1923). Excerpts reprinted in English (D. Dabrowska and T. Speed, Trans.)Statistical Science 1990;5:463-472.
10. Blot WJ, Day NE. Synergism and interaction: are they equivalent?American Journal of Epidemiology 1979;110:99-100.
11. Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Walker AM. Concepts of interaction. American Journal of Epidemiology 1980;112:467-470.
12. Saracci R. Interaction and synergism. American Journal of Epidemiology 1980;112:465-466.
13. Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. Modern Epidemiology, 3rd edn.Lippincott Williams & Wilkins:Philadelphia, 2008.
14. VanderWeele TJ, Robins JM. The identification of synergism in the suffcient-component cause framework. Epidemiology 2007;18:329-339.
15. VanderWeele TJ. Sufficient cause interactions and statistical interactions. Epidemiology 2009;20:6-13.
16. VanderWeele TJ. Empirical tests for compositional epistasis. Nature Reviews Genetics 2010;11:166.
17. Rothman KJ. Modern Epidemiology, 1st edn.Little, Brown and Company:Boston, MA, 1986.
18. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Confidence interval estimation of interaction. Epidemiology 1992;3:452-456.
19. Assmann SF, Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S, Mundt KA. Confidence intervals for measures of interaction. Epidemiology 1996;7:286-290.
20. VanderWeele TJ. On the distinction between interaction and effect modification. Epidemiology 2009;20:863-871.
21. VanderWeele TJ, Knol MJ. The interpretation of subgroup analyses in randomized trials: heterogeneity versus secondary interventions. Annals of Internal Medicine 2011;154:680-683.
22. Khoury MJ, Flanders WD. Nontraditional epidemiologic approaches in the analysis of gene-environment interaction: case-control studies with no controls!American Journal of Epidemiology 1996;144:207-213.
23. Piegorsch WW, Weinberg CR, Taylor JA. Non-hierarchical logistic models and case-only designs for assessing susceptibility in population-based case-control studies. Statistics in Medicine 1994;13:153-162.
24. Bennett WP, Alavanja MCR, Blomeke B, Vähäkangas KH, Castrén K, Welsh JA, Bowman ED, Khan MA, Flieder DB, Harris CC. Environmental tobacco smoke, genetic susceptibility, and risk of lung cancer in never-smoking women. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1999;91:2009-2014.
25. Ahsan H, Chen Y, Parvez F, Zablotska L, Argos M, Hussain I, Momotaj H, Levy D, Cheng Z, Slavkovich V, van Geen A, Howe GR, Graziano JH. Arsenic exposure from drinking water and risk of premalignant skin lesions in Bangladesh: baseline results from the Health Effects of Arsenic Longitudinal Study. American Journal of Epidemiology 2006;163:1138-1148.
26. Greenland S. Tests for interaction in epidemiologic studies: a review and a study of power. Statistics in Medicine 1983;2:243-251.