Sensitivity analysis is useful in assessing how robust an association is to potential unmeasured or uncontrolled confounding. This article introduces a new measure called the "E-value," which is ...related to the evidence for causality in observational studies that are potentially subject to confounding. The E-value is defined as the minimum strength of association, on the risk ratio scale, that an unmeasured confounder would need to have with both the treatment and the outcome to fully explain away a specific treatment-outcome association, conditional on the measured covariates. A large E-value implies that considerable unmeasured confounding would be needed to explain away an effect estimate. A small E-value implies little unmeasured confounding would be needed to explain away an effect estimate. The authors propose that in all observational studies intended to produce evidence for causality, the E-value be reported or some other sensitivity analysis be used. They suggest calculating the E-value for both the observed association estimate (after adjustments for measured confounders) and the limit of the confidence interval closest to the null. If this were to become standard practice, the ability of the scientific community to assess evidence from observational studies would improve considerably, and ultimately, science would be strengthened.
This article provides an overview of recent developments in mediation analysis, that is, analyses used to assess the relative magnitude of different pathways and mechanisms by which an exposure may ...affect an outcome. Traditional approaches to mediation in the biomedical and social sciences are described. Attention is given to the confounding assumptions required for a causal interpretation of direct and indirect effect estimates. Methods from the causal inference literature to conduct mediation in the presence of exposure-mediator interactions, binary outcomes, binary mediators, and case-control study designs are presented. Sensitivity analysis techniques for unmeasured confounding and measurement error are introduced. Discussion is given to extensions to time-to-event outcomes and multiple mediators. Further flexible modeling strategies arising from the precise counterfactual definitions of direct and indirect effects are also described. The focus throughout is on methodology that is easily implementable in practice across a broad range of potential applications.
Abstract Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. ...The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case–control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case–control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.
Context:
For health care planning and allocation of resources, realistic estimation of the prevalence of primary aldosteronism is necessary. Reported prevalences of primary aldosteronism are highly ...variable, possibly due to study heterogeneity.
Objective:
Our objective was to identify and explain heterogeneity in studies that aimed to establish the prevalence of primary aldosteronism in hypertensive patients.
Data Sources:
PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and reference lists from January 1, 1990, to January 31, 2015, were used as data sources.
Study Selection:
Description of an adult hypertensive patient population with confirmed diagnosis of primary aldosteronism was included in this study.
Data Extraction:
Dual extraction and quality assessment were the forms of data extraction.
Data Synthesis:
Thirty-nine studies provided data on 42 510 patients (nine studies, 5896 patients from primary care). Prevalence estimates varied from 3.2% to 12.7% in primary care and from 1% to 29.8% in referral centers. Heterogeneity was too high to establish point estimates (I2 = 57.6% in primary care; 97.1% in referral centers). Meta-regression analysis showed higher prevalences in studies 1) published after 2000, 2) from Australia, 3) aimed at assessing prevalence of secondary hypertension, 4) that were retrospective, 5) that selected consecutive patients, and 6) not using a screening test. All studies had minor or major flaws.
Conclusions:
This study demonstrates that it is pointless to claim low or high prevalence of primary aldosteronism based on published reports. Because of the significant impact of a diagnosis of primary aldosteronism on health care resources and the necessary facilities, our findings urge for a prevalence study whose design takes into account the factors identified in the meta-regression analysis.
A systematic review of 39 studies from primary care and referral centers shows that gross study heterogeneity precludes a reliable estimate of the prevalence of primary aldosteronism in hypertensive patients.
Abstract Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a ...study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case–control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site ( http://www.strobe-statement.org/ ) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research.
Abstract Many analyses of observational data are attempts to emulate a target trial. The emulation of the target trial may fail when researchers deviate from simple principles that guide the design ...and analysis of randomized experiments. We review a framework to describe and prevent biases, including immortal time bias, that result from a failure to align start of follow-up, specification of eligibility, and treatment assignment. We review some analytic approaches to avoid these problem in comparative effectiveness or safety research.
Machine learning approaches to modeling of epidemiologic data are becoming increasingly more prevalent in the literature. These methods have the potential to improve our understanding of health and ...opportunities for intervention, far beyond our past capabilities. This article provides a walkthrough for creating supervised machine learning models with current examples from the literature. From identifying an appropriate sample and selecting features through training, testing, and assessing performance, the end-to-end approach to machine learning can be a daunting task. We take the reader through each step in the process and discuss novel concepts in the area of machine learning, including identifying treatment effects and explaining the output from machine learning models.
Abstract
Epidemiologists are often confronted with datasets to analyse which contain measurement error due to, for instance, mistaken data entries, inaccurate recordings and measurement instrument or ...procedural errors. If the effect of measurement error is misjudged, the data analyses are hampered and the validity of the study’s inferences may be affected. In this paper, we describe five myths that contribute to misjudgments about measurement error, regarding expected structure, impact and solutions to mitigate the problems resulting from mismeasurements. The aim is to clarify these measurement error misconceptions. We show that the influence of measurement error in an epidemiological data analysis can play out in ways that go beyond simple heuristics, such as heuristics about whether or not to expect attenuation of the effect estimates. Whereas we encourage epidemiologists to deliberate about the structure and potential impact of measurement error in their analyses, we also recommend exercising restraint when making claims about the magnitude or even direction of effect of measurement error if not accompanied by statistical measurement error corrections or quantitative bias analysis. Suggestions for alleviating the problems or investigating the structure and magnitude of measurement error are given.
PDF
