The challenging interpretation of instrumental variable estimates under monotonicity

International Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 47, Issue 4, 2018, Pages 1289-1297

  Swanson, Sonja A ^a,c   Hernan, Miguel A ^a,b  

^a HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

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

^c ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Complier average causal effect; Instrumental variable; Local average treatment effect; Monotonicity

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; EPIDEMIOLOGY; METHODOLOGY;

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; GENETIC VARIABILITY; HUMAN; MENDELIAN RANDOMIZATION ANALYSIS; PHYSICIAN; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; CLINICAL PRACTICE; GENETIC VARIATION; PROCEDURES; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL BIAS; STATISTICAL MODEL;

BIAS; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; GENETIC VARIATION; HUMANS; MENDELIAN RANDOMIZATION ANALYSIS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PRACTICE PATTERNS, PHYSICIANS';

EID: 85057989428     PISSN: 03005771     EISSN: 14643685     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyx038     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Swanson SA, Hernan MA. Commentary: how to report instrumental variable analyses (suggestions welcome). Epidemiology 2013;24:370–74.
2. Imbens GW, Angrist JD. Identification and estimation of local average treatment effects. Econometrica 1994;62:467–75.
3. Angrist JD, Imbens GW, Rubin DB. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. J Am Stat Assoc 1996;91:44455.
4. Swanson SA, Hernan MA. Think globally, act globally: An epidemiologist’s perspective on instrumental variable estimation. Stat Sci 2014;29:371–74.
5. Swanson SA, Miller M, Robins JM, Hernan MA. Definition and evaluation of the monotonicity condition for preference-based instruments. Epidemiology 2015;26:414–20.
6. Deaton A. Instruments of Development: Randomization in the Tropics, and the Search for the Elusive Keys to Economic Development. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2009.
7. Hernan MA, Robins JM. Instruments for causal inference: an epidemiologist’s dream? Epidemiology 2006;17:360–72.
8. Joffe MM. Principal stratification and attribution prohibition: Good ideas taken too far. Int J Biostat 2011;7:1–22.
9. Pearl J. Principal stratification—a goal or a tool? Int J Biostat 2011;7:20.
10. Davies NM, Davey Smith G, Windmeijer F, Martin RM. Issues in the reporting and conduct of instrumental variable studies: a systematic review. Epidemiology 2013;24:363–69.
11. Angrist JD, Pischke J. Instrumental variables in action: sometimes you get what you need. In: Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009.
12. Baiocchi M, Cheng J, Small DS. Instrumental variable methods for causal inference. Stat Med 2014;33:2297–340.
13. Richardson T, Robins JM. Analysis of the binary instrumental variable model. In: Dechter R, Geffner H, Halpern JY (eds). Heuristics, Probability, and Causality: A Tribute to Judea Pearl. London: College Publications, 2010.
14. Brookhart MA, Rassen JA, Schneeweiss S. Instrumental variable methods in comparative safety and effectiveness research. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2010;19:537–54.
15. Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S. Preference-based instrumental variable methods for the estimation of treatment effects: assessing validity and interpreting results. Int J Biostat 2007;3:14.
16. Balke A, Pearl J. Bounds on treatment effects for studies with imperfect compliance. J Am Stat Assoc 1997;92:1171–76.
17. 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 (eds). Health Service Research Methodology: A Focus on AIDS. Washington, DC: US Public Health Service, 1989.
18. Didelez V, Meng S, Sheehan NA. Assumptions of IV methods for observational epidemiology. Stat Sci 2010;25:22–40.
19. Robins JM. Correcting for non-compliance in randomized trials using structural nested mean models. Community Stat 1994;23:2379–412.
20. Small D, Tan Z, Brookhart A. Instrumental variable estimation when compliance is not deterministic: the stochastic monotonicity assumption. arXiv preprint arXiv:1407.7308, 2014.
21. Palmer TM, Ramsahai RR, Didelez V, Sheehan NA. Nonparametric bounds for the causal effect in a binary instrumental variable model. Stata J 2011;11:345.
22. Hernan MA, Robins JM. Causal Inference. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall, 2017.
23. Lewis SJ, Davey Smith G. Alcohol, ALDH2, and esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis which illustrates the potentials and limitations of a Mendelian randomization approach. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14:1967–71.
24. Chen L, Davey Smith G, Harbord RM, Lewis SJ. Alcohol intake and blood pressure: a systematic review implementing a Mendelian randomization approach. PLoS Med 2008;5:e52.
25. Swanson SA. Can we see the forest for the IVs? Mendelian randomization studies with multiple genetic variants. Epidemiology 2017;28(1):43–6.
26. Heckman J, Vylacil EJ. Local instrumental variables and latent variable models for identifying and bounding treatment effects. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1999;96:4730–34.
27. Swanson SA, Holme O, Loberg M et al. Bounding the per-protocol effect in randomized trials: an application to colorectal cancer screening. Trials 2015;16(1):1–11.
28. Imbens G. Rejoinder. Stat Sci 2014;2014:375–79.
29. Swanson SA. Communicating causality. Eur J Epidemiol 2015;30:1073–75.
30. Lek M, Karczewski K, Minikel E et al. Analysis of protein-coding genetic variation in 60,706 humans. BioRxiv 2016:030338.