Erratum: Practical guidance for conducting mediation analysis with multiple mediators using inverse odds ratio weighting (American Journal of Epidemiology (2015) 181:5 (349-356) DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwu278);Practical guidance for conducting mediation analysis with multiple mediators using inverse odds ratio weighting

American Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 181, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 349-356

  Nguyen, Quynh C ^a   Osypuk, Theresa L ^b   Schmidt, Nicole M ^c   Glymour, M Maria ^d   Tchetgen, Eric J Tchetgen ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^c NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^e HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

direct effects; effect decomposition; indirect effects; mediation; weighted regression

Indexed keywords

COVARIANCE ANALYSIS; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; NEIGHBORHOOD; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SURVIVAL;

ANALYSIS; ARTICLE; HUMAN; INVERSE ODDS RATIO WEIGHTING; MEDIATION ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; CAUSALITY; DEMOGRAPHY; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HOUSING; OBESITY; ODDS RATIO; PREVALENCE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REGRESSION ANALYSIS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

CAUSALITY; EPIDEMIOLOGIC METHODS; HOUSING; HUMANS; OBESITY; ODDS RATIO; PREVALENCE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RESIDENCE CHARACTERISTICS;

EID: 84923004235     PISSN: 00029262     EISSN: 14766256     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwx058     Document Type: Erratum

References (51)

1. Imai K, Keele L, Tingley D. A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Psychol Methods. 2010;15(4):309-334.
2. Pearl J. Direct and indirect effects. In: Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-2001). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.; 2001:411-420.
3. Robins JM, Greenland S. Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology. 1992;3(2): 143-155.
4. VanderWeele TJ, Vansteelandt S. Conceptual issues concerning mediation, interventions and composition. Stat Interface. 2009;2(4):457-468.
5. VanderWeele TJ, Vansteelandt S. Odds ratios for mediation analysis for a dichotomous outcome. Am J Epidemiol. 2010; 172(12):1339-1348.
6. Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ, Shpitser I. Semiparametric Estimation of Models for Natural Direct and Indirect Effects. Boston, MA: Harvard University; 2011. (Harvard University Biostatistics Working Paper Series). http://biostats.bepress.com/harvardbiostat/paper129. Accessed April 15, 2013.
7. Pearl J. The causalmediation formula-A guide to the assessment of pathways and mechanisms. Prev Sci. 2012;13(4):426-436.
8. Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ. Inverse odds ratio-weighted estimation for causal mediation analysis. Stat Med. 2013;32(26):4567-4580.
9. Valeri L, VanderWeele TJ. Mediation analysis allowing for exposure-mediator interactions and causal interpretation: theoretical assumptions and implementation with SAS and SPSS macros. Psychol Methods. 2013;18(2):137-150.
10. Imai K, Keele L, Tingley D, et al. Causal mediation analysis using R. In: Vinod HD, ed. Advances in Social Science Research Using R. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company; 2010:129-154.
11. Lange T, Vansteelandt S, Bekaert M. A simple unified approach for estimating natural direct and indirect effects. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;176(3):190-195.
12. Lange T, Hansen JV. Direct and indirect effects in a survival context. Epidemiology. 2011;22(4):575-581.
13. VanderWeele TJ. Marginal structural models for the estimation of direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology. 2009;20(1):18-26.
14. van der Laan MJ, Petersen ML. Direct effect models. Int J Biostat. 2008;4(1):Article 23.
15. Albert JM. Distribution-free mediation analysis for nonlinear models with confounding. Epidemiology. 2012;23(6):879-888.
16. Zheng W, van der Laan MJ. Targeted maximum likelihood estimation of natural direct effects. Int J Biostat. 2012;8(1): Article 3.
17. Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ, Shpitser I. Semiparametric theory for causal mediation analysis: efficiency bounds, multiple robustness and sensitivity analysis. Ann Stat. 2012;40(3): 1816-1845.
18. Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ. On causal mediation analysis with a survival outcome. Int J Biostat. 2011;7(1):1-38.
19. Vansteelandt S, Bekaert M, Lange T. Imputation strategies for the estimation of natural direct and indirect effects. Epidemiol Methods. 2012;1(1):131-158.
20. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51(6):1173-1182.
21. VanderWeele TJ, Vansteelandt S. Mediation analysis with multiple mediators. Epidemiol Methods. 2013;2(1):95-115.
22. Lange T, Rasmussen M, Thygesen LC. Assessing natural direct and indirect effects through multiple pathways. Am J Epidemiol. 2014;179(4):513-518.
23. Jong G, Nomi T. Weighting methods for assessing policy effects mediated by peer change. J Res Educ Eff. 2013;5(3): 261-289.
24. Greenland S. Tests for interaction in epidemiologic studies: a review and a study of power. Stat Med. 1983;2(2):243-251.
25. Marshall SW. Power for tests of interaction: effect of raising the Type I error rate. Epidemiol Perspect Innov. 2007;4:4.
26. Robins JM, Richardson TS. Alternative graphical causal models and the identification of direct effects. In: Shrout PE, Keyes KM, Orstein K, eds. Causality and Psychopathology: Finding the Determinants of Disorders and Their Cures. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2011:103-158.
27. Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ, VanderWeele TJ. Identification of natural direct effects when a confounder of the mediator is directly affected by exposure. Epidemiology. 2014;25(2): 282-291.
28. VanderWeele TJ. Bias formulas for sensitivity analysis for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology. 2010;21(4):540-551.
29. Imai K, Keele L, Yamamoto T. Identification, inference and sensitivity analysis for causal mediation effects. Stat Sci. 2010; 25(1):51-71.
30. Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ. On the interpretation, robustness, and power of varieties of case-only tests of gene-environment interaction. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172(12):1335-1338.
31. Imai K, Keele L, Yamamoto T. Identification, inference and sensitivity analysis for causal mediation effects. Stat Sci. 2009; 25(1):51-71.
32. Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2004;36(4):717-731.
33. Muthén B. Applications of Causally Defined Direct and Indirect Effects in Mediation Analysis Using SEM in Mplus. (Working paper). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén and Muthén; 2011. http://www.statmodel.com/download/causalmediation.pdf. Accessed April 2, 2013.
34. Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ, Robins JM, Rotnitzky A. On doubly robust estimation in a semiparametric odds ratio model. Biometrika. 2010;97(1):171-180.
35. Orr L. Moving to Opportunity (MTO) for Fair Housing Demonstration: Interim Impacts Evaluation, Tier 1 Restricted Access Data, 1994-2001 [United States] (ICPSR 31661). Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research; 2011. http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/31661. Accessed January 12, 2013.
36. Goering J, Kraft J, Feins J, et al. Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing Demonstration Program: Current Status and Initial Findings. Washington, DC: Office of Policy Development and Research, US Department of Housing and Urban Development; 1999.
37. Osypuk TL, Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ, Acevedo-Garcia D, et al. Differential mental health effects of neighborhood relocation among youth in vulnerable families: results from a randomized trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2012;69(12):1284-1294.
38. DeVellis RF. Factor analytic strategies. In: Scale Development: Theory and Applications. 1st ed. (Applied Social Research Methods, vol. 26). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1991:91-109.
39. Elmståhl S, Gullberg B. Bias in diet assessment methods-consequences of collinearity and measurement errors on power and observed relative risks. Int J Epidemiol. 1997;26(5): 1071-1079.
40. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression, Second Edition. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2000.
41. Zou G. A modified Poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159(7): 702-706.
42. Orr L, Feins JD, Jacob R, et al. Appendix B: samples and analysis methods. In: Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing Demonstration Program: Interim Impacts Evaluation. Washington, DC: US Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development; 2003:B1-B31.
43. Shao J. Impact of the bootstrap on sample surveys. Stat Sci. 2003;18(2):191-198.
44. Royston P, White IR. Multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE): implementation in Stata. J Stat Softw. 2011;45(4): 1-20.
45. White IR, Carlin JB. Bias and efficiency of multiple imputation compared with complete-case analysis for missing covariate values. Stat Med. 2010;29(28):2920-2931.
46. Little RJA, Rubin DB. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. 2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2002.
47. Vansteelandt S, Lange C. Causation and causal inference for genetic effects. Hum Genet. 2012;131(10):1665-1676.
48. Cole SR, Hernán MA. Fallibility in estimating direct effects. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31(1):163-165.
49. Petersen ML, Sinisi SE, van der Laan MJ. Estimation of direct causal effects. Epidemiology. 2006;17(3):276-284.
50. Hafeman DM, VanderWeele TJ. Alternative assumptions for the identification of direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology. 2011;22(6):753-764.
51. Robins JM. Semantics of causal DAG models and the identification of direct and indirect effects. In: Green P, Hjort NL, Richardson S, eds. Highly Structured Stochastic Systems. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2003:70-81.