Explore the vast range of titles available.

Unmeasured confounding may undermine the validity of causal inference with observational studies. Sensitivity analysis provides an attractive way to partially circumvent this issue by assessing the potential influence of unmeasured confounding on causal conclusions. However, previous sensitivity analysis approaches often make strong and untestable assumptions such as having an unmeasured confounder that is binary, or having no interaction between the effects of the exposure and the confounder on the outcome, or having only one unmeasured confounder. Without imposing any assumptions on the unmeasured confounder or confounders, we derive a bounding factor and a sharp inequality such that the sensitivity analysis parameters must satisfy the inequality if an unmeasured confounder is to explain away the observed effect estimate or reduce it to a particular level. Our approach is easy to implement and involves only two sensitivity parameters. Surprisingly, our bounding factor, which makes no simplifying assumptions, is no more conservative than a number of previous sensitivity analysis techniques that do make assumptions. Our new bounding factor implies not only the traditional Cornfield conditions that both the relative risk of the exposure on the confounder and that of the confounder on the outcome must satisfy but also a high threshold that the maximum of these relative risks must satisfy. Furthermore, this new bounding factor can be viewed as a measure of the strength of confounding between the exposure and the outcome induced by a confounder.

Mendelian randomisation uses genetic variation as a natural experiment to investigate the causal relations between potentially modifiable risk factors and health outcomes in observational data. As with all epidemiological approaches, findings from Mendelian randomisation studies depend on specific assumptions. We provide explanations of the information typically reported in Mendelian randomisation studies that can be used to assess the plausibility of these assumptions and guidance on how to interpret findings from Mendelian randomisation studies in the context of other sources of evidence

For researchers using observational data, a useful way to answer a causal question is to design the target trial that would answer it and then emulate its protocol. The example of the HIV-treatment-as-prevention strategy illustrates the benefits of this approach.

Directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) are an intuitive yet rigorous tool to communicate about causal questions in clinical and epidemiologic research and inform study design and statistical analysis. DAGs are constructed to depict prior knowledge about biological and behavioral systems related to specific causal research questions. DAG components portray who receives treatment or experiences exposures; mechanisms by which treatments and exposures operate; and other factors that influence the outcome of interest or which persons are included in an analysis. Once assembled, DAGs — via a few simple rules — guide the researcher in identifying whether the causal effect of interest can be identified without bias and, if so, what must be done either in study design or data analysis to achieve this. Specifically, DAGs can identify variables that, if controlled for in the design or analysis phase, are sufficient to eliminate confounding and some forms of selection bias. DAGs also help recognize variables that, if controlled for, bias the analysis (e.g., mediators or factors influenced by both exposure and outcome). Finally, DAGs help researchers recognize insidious sources of bias introduced by selection of individuals into studies or failure to completely observe all individuals until study outcomes are reached. DAGs, however, are not infallible, largely owing to limitations in prior knowledge about the system in question. In such instances, several alternative DAGs are plausible, and researchers should assess whether results differ meaningfully across analyses guided by different DAGs and be forthright about uncertainty. DAGs are powerful tools to guide the conduct of clinical research.

Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies.

Selecting an appropriate set of confounders for which to control is critical for reliable causal inference. Recent theoretical and methodological developments have helped clarify a number of principles of confounder selection. When complete knowledge of a causal diagram relating all covariates to each other is available, graphical rules can be used to make decisions about covariate control. Unfortunately, such complete knowledge is often unavailable. This paper puts forward a practical approach to confounder selection decisions when the somewhat less stringent assumption is made that knowledge is available for each covariate whether it is a cause of the exposure, and whether it is a cause of the outcome. Based on recent theoretically justified developments in the causal inference literature, the following proposal is made for covariate control decisions: control for each covariate that is a cause of the exposure, or of the outcome, or of both; exclude from this set any variable known to be an instrumental variable; and include as a covariate any proxy for an unmeasured variable that is a common cause of both the exposure and the outcome. Various principles of confounder selection are then further related to statistical covariate selection methods.

A goal of many research programmes in biology is to extract meaningful insights from large, complex datasets. Researchers in ecology, evolution and behavior (EEB) often grapple with long-term, observational datasets from which they construct models to test causal hypotheses about biological processes. Similarly, epidemiologists analyse large, complex observational datasets to understand the distribution and determinants of human health. A key difference in the analytical workflows for these two distinct areas of biology is the delineation of data analysis tasks and explicit use of causal directed acyclic graphs (DAGs), widely adopted by epidemiologists. Here, we review the most recent causal inference literature and describe an analytical workflow that has direct applications for EEB. We start this commentary by defining four distinct analytical tasks (description, prediction, association, causal inference). The remainder of the text is dedicated to causal inference, specifically focusing on the use of DAGs to inform the modelling strategy. Given the increasing interest in causal inference and misperceptions regarding this task, we seek to facilitate an exchange of ideas between disciplinary silos and provide an analytical framework that is particularly relevant for making causal inference from observational data.

[...]we urge authors to consider using causal models when testing causal associations. [...]all other methods of controlling for confounding involve implicit assumptions about causal effects, which are not transparent to the reader. The observed associations between these covariates and the outcome have not been subject to the same approach to control of confounding as the exposure. [...]residual confounding and other biases often heavily influence these associations. [...]we recommend that P values only rarely be presented in isolation (exceptions may include \"omics\" studies and tests for interaction).

The nine Bradford Hill (BH) viewpoints (sometimes referred to as criteria) are commonly used to assess causality within epidemiology. However, causal thinking has since developed, with three of the most prominent approaches implicitly or explicitly building on the potential outcomes framework: directed acyclic graphs (DAGs), sufficient-component cause models (SCC models, also referred to as ‘causal pies’) and the grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) methodology. This paper explores how these approaches relate to BH’s viewpoints and considers implications for improving causal assessment. We mapped the three approaches above against each BH viewpoint. We found overlap across the approaches and BH viewpoints, underscoring BH viewpoints’ enduring importance. Mapping the approaches helped elucidate the theoretical underpinning of each viewpoint and articulate the conditions when the viewpoint would be relevant. Our comparisons identified commonality on four viewpoints: strength of association (including analysis of plausible confounding); temporality; plausibility (encoded by DAGs or SCC models to articulate mediation and interaction, respectively); and experiments (including implications of study design on exchangeability). Consistency may be more usefully operationalised by considering an effect size’s transportability to a different population or unexplained inconsistency in effect sizes (statistical heterogeneity). Because specificity rarely occurs, falsification exposures or outcomes (i.e., negative controls) may be more useful. The presence of a dose-response relationship may be less than widely perceived as it can easily arise from confounding. We found limited utility for coherence and analogy. This study highlights a need for greater clarity on BH viewpoints to improve causal assessment.

Examining covariate balance is the prescribed method for determining the degree to which propensity score methods should be successful at reducing bias. This study assessed the performance of various balance measures, including a proposed balance measure based on the prognostic score (similar to a disease risk score), to determine which balance measures best correlate with bias in the treatment effect estimate. The correlations of multiple common balance measures with bias in the treatment effect estimate produced by weighting by the odds, subclassification on the propensity score, and full matching on the propensity score were calculated. Simulated data were used, based on realistic data settings. Settings included both continuous and binary covariates and continuous covariates only. The absolute standardized mean difference (ASMD) in prognostic scores, the mean ASMD (in covariates), and the mean t-statistic all had high correlations with bias in the effect estimate. Overall, prognostic scores displayed the highest correlations with bias of all the balance measures considered. Prognostic score measure performance was generally not affected by model misspecification, and the prognostic score measure performed well under a variety of scenarios. Researchers should consider using prognostic score–based balance measures for assessing the performance of propensity score methods for reducing bias in nonexperimental studies.