Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

0 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Toward a clearer portrayal of confounding bias in instrumental variable applications.

ABSTRACT: Recommendations for reporting instrumental variable analyses often include presenting the balance of covariates across levels of the proposed instrument and levels of the treatment. However, such presentation can be misleading as relatively small imbalances among covariates across levels of the instrument can result in greater bias because of bias amplification. We introduce bias plots and bias component plots as alternative tools for understanding biases in instrumental variable analyses. Using previously published data on proposed preference-based, geography-based, and distance-based instruments, we demonstrate why presenting covariate balance alone can be problematic, and how bias component plots can provide more accurate context for bias from omitting a covariate from an instrumental variable versus non-instrumental variable analysis. These plots can also provide relevant comparisons of different proposed instruments considered in the same data. Adaptable code is provided for creating the plots.

SUBMITTER: Jackson JW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4673662 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Publications

Toward a clearer portrayal of confounding bias in instrumental variable applications.

Jackson John W JW Swanson Sonja A SA

Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) 20150701 4

Recommendations for reporting instrumental variable analyses often include presenting the balance of covariates across levels of the proposed instrument and levels of the treatment. However, such presentation can be misleading as relatively small imbalances among covariates across levels of the instrument can result in greater bias because of bias amplification. We introduce bias plots and bias component plots as alternative tools for understanding biases in instrumental variable analyses. Using ...[more]

PMID: 25978796

Similar Datasets

Using an instrumental variable to test for unmeasured confounding.

Project description:An important concern in an observational study is whether or not there is unmeasured confounding, that is, unmeasured ways in which the treatment and control groups differ before treatment, which affect the outcome. We develop a test of whether there is unmeasured confounding when an instrumental variable (IV) is available. An IV is a variable that is independent of the unmeasured confounding and encourages a subject to take one treatment level versus another, while having no effect on the outcome beyond its encouragement of a certain treatment level. We show what types of unmeasured confounding can be tested for with an IV and develop a test for this type of unmeasured confounding that has correct type I error rate. We show that the widely used Durbin-Wu-Hausman test can have inflated type I error rates when there is treatment effect heterogeneity. Additionally, we show that our test provides more insight into the nature of the unmeasured confounding than the Durbin-Wu-Hausman test. We apply our test to an observational study of the effect of a premature infant being delivered in a high-level neonatal intensive care unit (one with mechanical assisted ventilation and high volume) versus a lower level unit, using the excess travel time a mother lives from the nearest high-level unit to the nearest lower-level unit as an IV.

| S-EPMC4145076 | biostudies-literature

Instrumental Variable Analyses and Selection Bias.

Project description:Instrumental variables (IV) are used to draw causal conclusions about the effect of exposure E on outcome Y in the presence of unmeasured confounders. IV assumptions have been well described: (1) IV affects E; (2) IV affects Y only through E; (3) IV shares no common cause with Y. Even when these assumptions are met, biased effect estimates can result if selection bias allows a noncausal path from E to Y. We demonstrate the presence of bias in IV analyses on a sample from a simulated dataset, where selection into the sample was a collider on a noncausal path from E to Y. By applying inverse probability of selection weights, we were able to eliminate the selection bias. IV approaches may protect against unmeasured confounding but are not immune from selection bias. Inverse probability of selection weights used with IV approaches can minimize bias.

| S-EPMC5378646 | biostudies-literature

Instrumental variables as bias amplifiers with general outcome and confounding.

Project description:Drawing causal inference with observational studies is the central pillar of many disciplines. One sufficient condition for identifying the causal effect is that the treatment-outcome relationship is unconfounded conditional on the observed covariates. It is often believed that the more covariates we condition on, the more plausible this unconfoundedness assumption is. This belief has had a huge impact on practical causal inference, suggesting that we should adjust for all pretreatment covariates. However, when there is unmeasured confounding between the treatment and outcome, estimators adjusting for some pretreatment covariate might have greater bias than estimators without adjusting for this covariate. This kind of covariate is called a bias amplifier, and includes instrumental variables that are independent of the confounder, and affect the outcome only through the treatment. Previously, theoretical results for this phenomenon have been established only for linear models. We fill in this gap in the literature by providing a general theory, showing that this phenomenon happens under a wide class of models satisfying certain monotonicity assumptions. We further show that when the treatment follows an additive or multiplicative model conditional on the instrumental variable and the confounder, these monotonicity assumptions can be interpreted as the signs of the arrows of the causal diagrams.

| S-EPMC5636691 | biostudies-literature

Combating unmeasured confounding in cross-sectional studies: evaluating instrumental-variable and Heckman selection models.

Project description:Unmeasured confounding is the principal threat to unbiased estimation of treatment "effects" (i.e., regression parameters for binary regressors) in nonexperimental research. It refers to unmeasured characteristics of individuals that lead them both to be in a particular "treatment" category and to register higher or lower values than others on a response variable. In this article, I introduce readers to 2 econometric techniques designed to control the problem, with a particular emphasis on the Heckman selection model (HSM). Both techniques can be used with only cross-sectional data. Using a Monte Carlo experiment, I compare the performance of instrumental-variable regression (IVR) and HSM to that of ordinary least squares (OLS) under conditions with treatment and unmeasured confounding both present and absent. I find HSM generally to outperform IVR with respect to mean-square-error of treatment estimates, as well as power for detecting either a treatment effect or unobserved confounding. However, both HSM and IVR require a large sample to be fully effective. The use of HSM and IVR in tandem with OLS to untangle unobserved confounding bias in cross-sectional data is further demonstrated with an empirical application. Using data from the 2006-2010 General Social Survey (National Opinion Research Center, 2014), I examine the association between being married and subjective well-being.

| S-EPMC4217491 | biostudies-literature

Selecting on treatment: a pervasive form of bias in instrumental variable analyses.

Project description:Instrumental variable (IV) methods are increasingly being used in comparative effectiveness research. Studies using these methods often compare 2 particular treatments, and the researchers perform their IV analyses conditional on patients' receiving this subset of treatments (while ignoring the third option of "neither treatment"). The ensuing selection bias that occurs due to this restriction has gone relatively unnoticed in interpretations and discussions of these studies' results. In this paper we describe the structure of this selection bias with examples drawn from commonly proposed instruments such as calendar time and preference, illustrate the bias with causal diagrams, and estimate the magnitude and direction of possible bias using simulations. A noncausal association between the proposed instrument and the outcome can occur in analyses restricted to patients receiving a subset of the possible treatments. This results in bias in the numerator for the standard IV estimator; the bias is amplified in the treatment effect estimate. The direction and magnitude of the bias in the treatment effect estimate are functions of the distribution of and relationships between the proposed instrument, treatment values, unmeasured confounders, and outcome. IV methods used to compare a subset of treatment options are prone to substantial biases, even when the proposed instrument appears relatively strong.

| S-EPMC4312427 | biostudies-literature

Selection Bias When Estimating Average Treatment Effects Using One-sample Instrumental Variable Analysis.

Project description:Participants in epidemiologic and genetic studies are rarely true random samples of the populations they are intended to represent, and both known and unknown factors can influence participation in a study (known as selection into a study). The circumstances in which selection causes bias in an instrumental variable (IV) analysis are not widely understood by practitioners of IV analyses. We use directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) to depict assumptions about the selection mechanism (factors affecting selection) and show how DAGs can be used to determine when a two-stage least squares IV analysis is biased by different selection mechanisms. Through simulations, we show that selection can result in a biased IV estimate with substantial confidence interval (CI) undercoverage, and the level of bias can differ between instrument strengths, a linear and nonlinear exposure-instrument association, and a causal and noncausal exposure effect. We present an application from the UK Biobank study, which is known to be a selected sample of the general population. Of interest was the causal effect of staying in school at least 1 extra year on the decision to smoke. Based on 22,138 participants, the two-stage least squares exposure estimates were very different between the IV analysis ignoring selection and the IV analysis which adjusted for selection (e.g., risk differences, 1.8% [95% CI, -1.5%, 5.0%] and -4.5% [95% CI, -6.6%, -2.4%], respectively). We conclude that selection bias can have a major effect on an IV analysis, and further research is needed on how to conduct sensitivity analyses when selection depends on unmeasured data.

| S-EPMC6525095 | biostudies-literature

Instrumental variable applications using nursing home prescribing preferences in comparative effectiveness research.

Project description:Nursing home residents are of particular interest for comparative effectiveness research given their susceptibility to adverse treatment effects and systematic exclusion from trials. However, the risk of residual confounding because of unmeasured markers of declining health using conventional analytic methods is high. We evaluated the validity of instrumental variable (IV) methods based on nursing home prescribing preference to mitigate such confounding, using psychotropic medications to manage behavioral problems in dementia as a case study.A cohort using linked data from Medicaid, Medicare, Minimum Data Set, and Online Survey, Certification and Reporting for 2001-2004 was established. Dual-eligible patients ?65?years who initiated psychotropic medication use after admission were selected. Nursing home prescribing preference was characterized using mixed-effects logistic regression models. The plausibility of IV assumptions was explored, and the association between psychotropic medication class and 180-day mortality was estimated.High-prescribing and low-prescribing nursing homes differed by a factor of 2. Each preference-based IV measure described a substantial proportion of variation in psychotropic medication choice (?(IV???treatment): 0.22-0.36). Measured patient characteristics were well balanced across patient groups based on instrument status (52% average reduction in Mahalanobis distance). There was no evidence that instrument status was associated with markers of nursing home quality of care.Findings indicate that IV analyses using nursing home prescribing preference may be a useful approach in comparative effectiveness studies, and should extend naturally to analyses including untreated comparison groups, which are of great scientific interest but subject to even stronger confounding.

| S-EPMC4116440 | biostudies-literature

Data dredging, bias, or confounding.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC1124898 | biostudies-literature

Instrumental variable with competing risk model.

Project description:In this paper, we discuss causal inference on the efficacy of a treatment or medication on a time-to-event outcome with competing risks. Although the treatment group can be randomized, there can be confoundings between the compliance and the outcome. Unmeasured confoundings may exist even after adjustment for measured covariates. Instrumental variable methods are commonly used to yield consistent estimations of causal parameters in the presence of unmeasured confoundings. On the basis of a semiparametric additive hazard model for the subdistribution hazard, we propose an instrumental variable estimator to yield consistent estimation of efficacy in the presence of unmeasured confoundings for competing risk settings. We derived the asymptotic properties for the proposed estimator. The estimator is shown to be well performed under finite sample size according to simulation results. We applied our method to a real transplant data example and showed that the unmeasured confoundings lead to significant bias in the estimation of the effect (about 50% attenuated). Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

| S-EPMC5479873 | biostudies-literature

Instrumental variable estimation in a survival context.

Project description:Bias due to unobserved confounding can seldom be ruled out with certainty when estimating the causal effect of a nonrandomized treatment. The instrumental variable (IV) design offers, under certain assumptions, the opportunity to tame confounding bias, without directly observing all confounders. The IV approach is very well developed in the context of linear regression and also for certain generalized linear models with a nonlinear link function. However, IV methods are not as well developed for regression analysis with a censored survival outcome. In this article, we develop the IV approach for regression analysis in a survival context, primarily under an additive hazards model, for which we describe 2 simple methods for estimating causal effects. The first method is a straightforward 2-stage regression approach analogous to 2-stage least squares commonly used for IV analysis in linear regression. In this approach, the fitted value from a first-stage regression of the exposure on the IV is entered in place of the exposure in the second-stage hazard model to recover a valid estimate of the treatment effect of interest. The second method is a so-called control function approach, which entails adding to the additive hazards outcome model, the residual from a first-stage regression of the exposure on the IV. Formal conditions are given justifying each strategy, and the methods are illustrated in a novel application to a Mendelian randomization study to evaluate the effect of diabetes on mortality using data from the Health and Retirement Study. We also establish that analogous strategies can also be used under a proportional hazards model specification, provided the outcome is rare over the entire follow-up.

| S-EPMC4387894 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data