Cargando…

Sensitivity analysis for mistakenly adjusting for mediators in estimating total effect in observational studies

OBJECTIVES: In observational studies, epidemiologists often attempt to estimate the total effect of an exposure on an outcome of interest. However, when the underlying diagram is unknown and limited knowledge is available, dissecting bias performances is essential to estimating the total effect of a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wang, Tingting, Li, Hongkai, Su, Ping, Yu, Yuanyuan, Sun, Xiaoru, Liu, Yi, Yuan, Zhongshang, Xue, Fuzhong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5719285/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29162569
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015640
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVES: In observational studies, epidemiologists often attempt to estimate the total effect of an exposure on an outcome of interest. However, when the underlying diagram is unknown and limited knowledge is available, dissecting bias performances is essential to estimating the total effect of an exposure on an outcome when mistakenly adjusting for mediators under logistic regression. Through simulation, we focused on six causal diagrams concerning different roles of mediators. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the bias performances of varying across exposure-mediator effects and mediator-outcome effects when adjusting for the mediator. SETTING: Based on the causal relationships in the real world, we compared the biases of varying across the effects of exposure-mediator with those of varying across the effects of mediator-outcome when adjusting for the mediator. The magnitude of the bias was defined by the difference between the estimated effect (using logistic regression) and the total effect of the exposure on the outcome. RESULTS: In four scenarios (a single mediator, two series mediators, two independent parallel mediators or two correlated parallel mediators), the biases of varying across the effects of exposure-mediator were greater than those of varying across the effects of mediator-outcome when adjusting for the mediator. In contrast, in two other scenarios (a single mediator or two independent parallel mediators in the presence of unobserved confounders), the biases of varying across the effects of exposure-mediator were less than those of varying across the effects of mediator-outcome when adjusting for the mediator. CONCLUSIONS: The biases were more sensitive to the variation of effects of exposure-mediator than the effects of mediator-outcome when adjusting for the mediator in the absence of unobserved confounders, while the biases were more sensitive to the variation of effects of mediator-outcome than those of exposure-mediator in the presence of an unobserved confounder.