Sensitivity analysis without assumptions

Epidemiology

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 368-377

  Dinga, Peng ^a   VanderWeele, Tyler J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONFOUNDING VARIABLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; EPIDEMIOLOGY; EXPOSURE; HAZARD RATIO; HEALTH CARE DISPARITY; HUMAN; LUNG CANCER; MATHEMATICAL PARAMETERS; NULL HYPOTHESIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PARAMETERS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; RATING SCALE; RISK FACTOR; SATISFACTION; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SMOKING; STATISTICAL BIAS; CAUSALITY; RISK; STATISTICS;

CAUSALITY; CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); EPIDEMIOLOGIC METHODS; HUMANS; RISK; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84956899837     PISSN: 10443983     EISSN: 15315487     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/eDe.0000000000000457     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Cornfeld J, Haenszel W, And Hammond EC et al. Smoking and lung cancer: recent evidence and a discussion of some questions. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1959;22:173-203.
2. Bross IDJ. Spurious effects from an extraneous variable. J Chronic Dis. 1966;19:637-647.
3. Bross IDJ. Pertinency of an extraneous variable. J Chronic Dis. 1967;20:487-495.
4. Yanagawa T. case-control studies: assessing the effect of a confounding factor. Biometrika. 1984;71:191-194.
5. 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.
6. Imbens g W. Sensitivity to exogeneity assumptions in program evaluation. Am Econ Rev. 2003;93:126-132.
7. Schlesselman JJ. assessing effects of confounding variables. Am J Epidemiol. 1978;108:3-8.
8. VanderWeele TJ, Arah OA. Bias formulas for sensitivity analysis of unmeasured confounding for general outcomes, treatments, and confound-ers. Epidemiology. 2011;22:42-52.
9. Lin DY, Psaty BM, Kronmal RA. assessing the sensitivity of regression results to unmeasured confounders in observational studies. Biometrics. 1998;54:948-963.
10. Lee WC. Bounding the bias of unmeasured factors with confounding and effect-modifying potentials. Stat Med. 2011;30:1007-1017.
11. Ding P, VanderWeele TJ. generalized cornfeld conditions for the risk difference. Biometrika. 2014;101:971-977.
12. Flanders WD, Khoury MJ. indirect assessment of confounding: graphic description and limits on effect of adjusting for covariates. Epidemiology. 1990;1:239-246.
13. Hammond EC, Horn D. Smoking and death rates: report on forty four months of follow-up of 187, 783 men. J Am Med Assoc. 1958;166:1159-1172, 1294-1308.
14. Fisher RA. Dangers of cigarette smoking [letter]. Brit Med J. 1957;2:297-298.
15. Poole C. On the origin of risk relativism. Epidemiology. 2010;21:3-9.
16. Gastwirth JL, Krieger AM, And rosenbaum PR. cornfeld's inequality. in: armitage P, Colton T, eds. Encyclopedia of Biostatistics. new York, nY: Wiley; 1998:952-955.
17. Wang L, Krieger AM. causal conclusions are most sensitive to unobserved binary covariates. Stat Med. 2006;25:2257-2271.
18. Ichino A, Mealli F, Nannicini T. From temporary help jobs to permanent employment: what can we learn from matching estimators and their sensitivity? J Appl Econom. 2008;23:305-327.