Causal null hypotheses of sustained treatment strategies: What can be tested with an instrumental variable?

European Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 33, Issue 8, 2018, Pages 723-728

  Swanson, Sonja A ^a,b   Labrecque, Jeremy ^a   Hernán, Miguel A ^b,c  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^c HARVARD MIT DIVISION OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Causal null hypothesis; Hypothesis testing; Instrumental variable; Mendelian randomization

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; MENDELIAN RANDOMIZATION ANALYSIS; NULL HYPOTHESIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL;

DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; MENDELIAN RANDOMIZATION ANALYSIS; MODELS, STATISTICAL;

EID: 85050095170     PISSN: 03932990     EISSN: 15737284     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10654-018-0396-6     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Hernán MA, Robins JM. Instruments for causal inference: an epidemiologist’s dream? Epidemiology. 2006;17(4):360–72. 10.1097/01.ede.0000222409.00878.37.
2. Swanson SA, Hernán MA. The challenging interpretation of instrumental variable estimates under monotonicity. Int J Epidemiol. 2017. 10.1093/ije/dyx038.
3. Swanson SA, Miller M, Robins JM, Hernán MA. Definition and evaluation of the monotonicity condition for preference-based instruments. Epidemiology. 2015;26(3):414–20. 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000279.
4. Swanson SA, Hernán MA. Think globally, act globally: an epidemiologist’s perspective on instrumental variable estimation. Sta Sci. 2014;29(3):371–4.
5. Burgess S, Bowden J, Fall T, Ingelsson E, Thompson SG. Sensitivity analyses for robust causal inference from Mendelian randomization analyses with multiple genetic variants. Epidemiology. 2017;28(1):30–42. 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000559.
6. Burgess S, Thompson SG. Mendelian randomization: methods for using genetic variants in causal estimation. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2015.
7. Swanson SA, Tiemeier H, Ikram MA, Hernán MA. Nature as a trialist?: Deconstructing the analogy between Mendelian randomization and randomized trials. Epidemiology. 2017;28(5):653–9. 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000699.
8. Swanson SA. Commentary: can we see the forest for the IVs?: Mendelian randomization studies with multiple genetic variants. Epidemiology. 2017;28(1):43–6. 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000558.
9. Burgess S, Small DS. Predicting the direction of causal effect based on an instrumental variable analysis: a cautionary tale. J Causal Inference. 2016;4(1):49–59.
10. Angrist JD, Imbens GW, Rubin DB. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. J Am Stat Assoc. 1996;91(434):444–55.
11. Swanson SA, Hernán MA. Commentary: how to report instrumental variable analyses (suggestions welcome). Epidemiology. 2013;24(3):370–4. 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31828d0590.
12. Swanson SA, Holme O, Loberg M, Kalager M, Bretthauer M, Hoff G, et al. Bounding the per-protocol effect in randomized trials: an application to colorectal cancer screening. Trials. 2015;16(1):1–11.
13. Robins JM. The analysis of randomized and nonrandomized AIDS treatment trials using a new approach to causal inference in longitudinal studies. In: Sechrest L, Freeman H, Mulley A, editors. Health service research methodology: a focus on AIDS. Washington: US Public Health Service; 1989. p. 113–59.
14. Richardson T, Robins JM. Analysis of the binary instrumental variable model. In: Dechter R, Geffner H, Halpern JY, editors. Heuristics, probability, and causality: a tribute to Judea Pearl. London: College Publications; 2010. p. 415–44.
15. Collaboration CRPCHDG. Association between C reactive protein and coronary heart disease: mendelian randomisation analysis based on individual participant data. BMJ. 2011;342:d548.
16. Marott SCW, Nordestgaard BG, Zacho J, Friberg J, Jensen GB, Tybjærg-Hansen A, et al. Does elevated C-reactive protein increase atrial fibrillation risk?: a Mendelian randomization of 47,000 individuals from the general population. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56(10):789–95.
17. Burgess S. Sensitivity analyses for robust causal inference from Mendelian randomization analyses with multiple genetic variants. Epidemiology. 2017;28(1):30–42.
18. Chen L, Smith GD, Harbord RM, Lewis SJ. Alcohol intake and blood pressure: a systematic review implementing a Mendelian randomization approach. PLoS Med. 2008;5(3):e52.
19. Katikireddi SV, Green M, Taylor AE, Davey Smith G, Munafo M. Assessing causal relationships using genetic proxies for exposures: an introduction to Mendelian randomisation. Addiction. 2018;113(4):764–74.
20. Holmes MV, Dale CE, Zuccolo L, Silverwood RJ, Guo Y, Ye Z, et al. Association between alcohol and cardiovascular disease: Mendelian randomisation analysis based on individual participant data. Br Med J (BMJ). 2014. 10.1136/bmj.g4164.
21. Rothman KJ. Disengaging from statistical significance. Eur J Epidemiol. 2016;31(5):443.
22. Lash TL. The harm done to reproducibility by the culture of null hypothesis significance testing. Am J Epidemiol. 2017;186(6):627–35.
23. Greenland S. Invited commentary: the need for cognitive science in methodology. Am J Epidemiol. 2017;186(6):639–45.
24. Wasserstein RL. ASA statement on statistical significance and P-values. Alexandria: Amer Statistical Assoc; 2016.
25. Burgess S. Sample size and power calculations in Mendelian randomization with a single instrumental variable and a binary outcome. Int J Epidemiol. 2014;43(3):922–9. 10.1093/ije/dyu005.
26. Pierce BL, Ahsan H, VanderWeele TJ. Power and instrument strength requirements for Mendelian randomization studies using multiple genetic variants. Int J Epidemiol. 2010;40(3):740–52.
27. Freeman G, Cowling BJ, Schooling CM. Power and sample size calculations for Mendelian randomization studies using one genetic instrument. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42(4):1157–63.