Identifying the odds ratio estimated by a two-stage instrumental variable analysis with a logistic regression model

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 32, Issue 27, 2013, Pages 4726-4747

  Burgess, Stephen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Instrumental variables; Logistic regression; Mendelian randomization; Noncollapsibility

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; COVARIATE; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTAL VARIABLE ANALYSIS; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; LOGISTIC REGRESSION MODEL; MATHEMATICAL VARIABLE; MENDELIAN RANDOMIZATION ANALYSIS; MULTIPLE REGRESSION; POPULATION DISTRIBUTION; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; STATISTICAL MODEL; VARIANCE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; INSTRUMENTAL VARIABLES; METABOLISM; METHODOLOGY; NONCOLLAPSIBILITY; RISK;

C REACTIVE PROTEIN;

INSTRUMENTAL VARIABLES; LOGISTIC REGRESSION; MENDELIAN RANDOMIZATION; NONCOLLAPSIBILITY;

C-REACTIVE PROTEIN; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CORONARY DISEASE; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MENDELIAN RANDOMIZATION ANALYSIS; ODDS RATIO; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 84898057789     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.5871     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Didelez V, Sheehan N. Mendelian randomization as an instrumental variable approach to causal inference. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 2007; 16(4):309-330. DOI: 10:1177/0962280206077743.
2. Hosmer D, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression, Vol. 354. Wiley-Interscience: Hoboken, NJ, 2000.
3. Vansteelandt S, Bowden J, Babanezhad M, Goetghebeur E. On instrumental variables estimation of causal odds ratios. Statistical Science 2011; 26(3):403-422. DOI: 10.1214/11-sts360.
4. Greenland S. An introduction to instrumental variables for epidemiologists. International Journal of Epidemiology 2000; 29(4):722-729. DOI: 10.1093/ije/29.4.722.
5. Martens E, Pestman W, de Boer A, Belitser S, Klungel O. Instrumental variables: application and limitations. Epidemiology 2006; 17(3):260-267. DOI: 10.1097/01.ede.0000215160.88317.cb.
6. Zohoori N, Savitz D. Econometric approaches to epidemiologic data: relating endogeneity and unobserved heterogeneity to confounding. Annals of Epidemiology 1997; 7(4):251-257. DOI: 10.1016/s1047-2797(97)00023-9.
7. Angrist J, Imbens G, Rubin D. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1996; 91(434):444-455.
8. Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S. 'Mendelian randomization': can genetic epidemiology contribute to understanding environmental determinants of disease? International Journal of Epidemiology 2003; 32(1):1-22. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyg070.
9. Schatzkin A, Abnet C, Cross A, Gunter M, Pfeiffer R, Gail M, Lim U, Davey Smith G. Mendelian randomization: how it can-and cannot-help confirm causal relations between nutrition and cancer. Cancer Prevention Research 2009; 2(2):104-113. DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.capr-08-0070.
10. Davey Smith G. Use of genetic markers and gene-diet interactions for interrogating population-level causal influences of diet on health. Genes & Nutrition 2010; 6(1):27-43. DOI: 10.1007/s12263-010-0181-y.
11. Nitsch D, Molokhia M, Smeeth L, DeStavola B, Whittaker J, Leon D. Limits to causal inference based on Mendelian randomization: a comparison with randomized controlled trials. American Journal of Epidemiology 2006; 163(5):397-403. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwj062.
12. Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration. C-reactive protein concentration and risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, and mortality: an individual participant meta-analysis. The Lancet 2010; 375(9709):132-140. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61717-7.
13. CRP CHD Genetics Collaboration. Association between C reactive protein and coronary heart disease: Mendelian randomisation analysis based on individual participant data. British Medical Journal 2011; 342:d548. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d548.
14. Greenland S, Robins J, Pearl J. Confounding and collapsibility in causal inference. Statistical Science 1999; 14(1):29-46. DOI: 10.1214/ss/1009211805.
15. Whittemore A. Collapsibility of multidimensional contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) 1978; 40(3):328-340.
16. Geng Z. Collapsibility of relative risk in contingency tables with a response variable. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) 1992; 54(2):585-593.
17. Ducharme G, LePage Y. Testing collapsibility in contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) 1986; 48(2):197-205.
18. Hauck W, Anderson S, Marcus S. Should we adjust for covariates in nonlinear regression analyses of randomized trials? Controlled Clinical Trials 1998; 19(3):249-256. DOI: 10.1016/S0197-2456(97)00147-5.
19. Palmer T, Thompson J, Tobin M, Sheehan N, Burton P. Adjusting for bias and unmeasured confounding in Mendelian randomization studies with binary responses. International Journal of Epidemiology 2008; 37(5):1161-1168. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyn080.
20. Dawid A. Influence diagrams for causal modelling and inference. International Statistical Review 2007; 70(2):161-189. DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-5823.2002.tb00354.x.
21. Pearl J. Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, 2000.
22. Pearl J. Causal diagrams for empirical research. Biometrika 1995; 82(4):669-688. DOI: 10.1093/biomet/82.4.669.
23. Greenland S. Interpretation and choice of effect measures in epidemiologic analyses. American Journal of Epidemiology 1987; 125(5):761-768.
24. Tan Z.Marginal and nested structural models using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2010; 105(489):157-169. DOI: 10.1198/jasa.2009.tm08299.
25. Zeger S, Liang K, Albert P. Models for longitudinal data: a generalized estimating equation approach. Biometrics 1988; 44(4):1049-1060.
26. Greenland S. Model-based estimation of relative risks and other epidemiologic measures in studies of common outcomes and in case-control studies. American Journal of Epidemiology 2004; 160(4):301-305. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwh221.
27. Dawid A. Influence diagrams for causal modelling and inference. International Statistical Review 2002; 70(2):161-189. DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-5823.2002.tb00354.x.
28. Clarke P, Windmeijer F. Instrumental variable estimators for binary outcomes. 10/239, Centre for Market and Public Organisation, University of Bristol, UK, 2010.
29. Didelez V, Meng S, Sheehan N. Assumptions of IV methods for observational epidemiology. Statistical Science 2010; 25(1):22-40. DOI: 10.1214/09-sts316.
30. Wald A. The fitting of straight lines if both variables are subject to error. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 1940; 11(3):284-300.
31. Angrist J, Graddy K, Imbens G. The interpretation of instrumental variables estimators in simultaneous equations models with an application to the demand for fish. Review of Economic Studies 2000; 67(3):499-527. DOI: 10.1111/1467-937x.00141.
32. von Hinke Kessler Scholder S, Davey Smith G, Lawlor D, Propper C, Windmeijer F. Genetic markers as instrumental variables: an application to child fat mass and academic achievement. 10/229, Department of Economics, University of Bristol, UK, 2010.
33. Tobin M, Minelli C, Burton P, Thompson J. Commentary: Development of Mendelian randomization: from hypothesis test to 'Mendelian deconfounding'. International Journal of Epidemiology 2004; 33(1):26-29. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyh016.
34. Thompson J, Minelli C, Abrams K, Tobin M, Riley R. Meta-analysis of genetic studies usingMendelian randomization-a multivariate approach. Statistics in Medicine 2005; 24(14):2241-2254. DOI: 10.1002/sim.2100.
35. Palmer T, Sterne J, Harbord R, Lawlor D, Sheehan N, Meng S, Granell R, Davey Smith G, Didelez V. Instrumental variable estimation of causal risk ratios and causal odds ratios in Mendelian randomization analyses. American Journal of Epidemiology 2011; 173(12):1392-1403. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwr026.
36. Lawlor D, Harbord R, Sterne J, Timpson N, Davey Smith G. Mendelian randomization: using genes as instruments for making causal inferences in epidemiology. Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27(8):1133-1163. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3034.
37. Bowden R, Turkington D. Instrumental Variables. Cambridge University Press: NY, 1990.
38. Angrist J, Pischke J. Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, 2009.
39. Rassen J, Schneeweiss S, Glynn R, Mittleman M, Brookhart M. Instrumental variable analysis for estimation of treatment effects with dichotomous outcomes. American Journal of Epidemiology 2009; 169(3):273-284. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwn299.
40. Foster E. Instrumental variables for logistic regression: an illustration. Social Science Research 1997; 26(4):487-504. DOI: 10.1006/ssre.1997.0606.
41. Terza J, Basu A, Rathouz P. Two-stage residual inclusion estimation: addressing endogeneity in health econometric modeling. Journal of Health Economics 2008; 27(3):531-543. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2007.09.009.
42. Cai B, Small D, Ten Have T. Two-stage instrumental variable methods for estimating the causal odds ratio: analysis of bias. Statistics in Medicine 2011; 30(15):1809-1824. DOI: 10.1002/sim.4241.
43. Wooldridge J. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 2002.
44. Nagelkerke N, Fidler V, Bernsen R, Borgdorff M. Estimating treatment effects in randomized clinical trials in the presence of non-compliance. Statistics in Medicine 2000; 19(14):1849-1864.
45. Bochud M, Rousson V. Usefulness of Mendelian randomization in observational epidemiology. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2010; 7(3):711-728. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph7030711.
46. Ford I, Norrie J. The role of covariates in estimating treatment effects and risk in long-term clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine 2002; 21(19):2899-2908. DOI: 10.1002/sim.1294.
47. Bowden J, Vansteelandt S. Mendelian randomisation analysis of case-control data using structural mean models. Statistics in Medicine 2011; 30(6):678-694. DOI: 10.1002/sim.4138.
48. Burgess S, Butterworth A, Malarstig A, Thompson S. Use of Mendelian randomisation to assess potential benefit of clinical intervention. British Medical Journal 2012; 345:e7325. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.e7325.
49. Harbord R, Didelez V, Palmer T, Meng S, Sterne J, Sheehan N. Severity of bias of a simple estimator of the causal odds ratio in Mendelian randomization studies. Statistics in Medicine 2012; 32(7):1246-1258. DOI: 10.1002/sim.5659.
50. Stampf S, Graf E, Schmoor C, Schumacher M. Estimators and confidence intervals for the marginal odds ratio using logistic regression and propensity score stratification. Statistics in Medicine 2010; 29(7-8):760-769. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3811.
51. Stukel T, Fisher E, Wennberg D, Alter D, Gottlieb D, Vermeulen M. Analysis of observational studies in the presence of treatment selection bias. Journal of the American Medical Association 2007; 297(3):278-285. DOI: 10.1001/jama.297.3.278.
52. Robinson L, Jewell N. Some surprising results about covariate adjustment in logistic regression models. International Statistical Review 1991; 59(2):227-240.
53. Steyerberg E, Bossuyt P, Lee K. Clinical trials in acute myocardial infarction: should we adjust for baseline characteristics? American Heart Journal 2000; 139(5):745-751.
54. Gail M,Wieand S, Piantadosi S. Biased estimates of treatment effect in randomized experiments with nonlinear regressions and omitted covariates. Biometrika 1984; 71(3):431-444.
55. Hausman J. Handbook of Econometrics, Vol. 1. Elsevier: Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1983. See footnote 60.