Selection bias and multiple inclusion criteria in observational studies
Author:
Zetterstrom Stina1, Waernbaum Ingeborg1
Affiliation:
1. Department of Statistics , Uppsala University , Uppsala , Sweden
Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
Spurious associations between an exposure and outcome not describing the causal estimand of interest can be the result of selection of the study population. Recently, sensitivity parameters and bounds have been proposed for selection bias, along the lines of sensitivity analysis previously proposed for bias due to unmeasured confounding. The basis for the bounds is that the researcher specifies values for sensitivity parameters describing associations under additional identifying assumptions. The sensitivity parameters describe aspects of the joint distribution of the outcome, the selection and a vector of unmeasured variables, for each treatment group respectively. In practice, selection of a study population is often made on the basis of several selection criteria, thereby affecting the proposed bounds.
Methods
We extend the previously proposed bounds to give additional guidance for practitioners to construct i) the sensitivity parameters for multiple selection variables and ii) an alternative assumption free bound, producing only logically feasible values. As a motivating example we derive the bounds for causal estimands in a study of perinatal risk factors for childhood onset Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus where selection of the study population was made by multiple inclusion criteria. To give further guidance for practitioners, we provide a data learner in R where both the sensitivity parameters and the assumption-free bounds are implemented.
Results
The assumption-free bounds can be both smaller and larger than the previously proposed bounds and can serve as an indicator of settings when the former bounds do not produce feasible values. The motivating example shows that the assumption-free bounds may not be appropriate when the outcome or treatment is rare.
Conclusions
Bounds can provide guidance in a sensitivity analysis to assess the magnitude of selection bias. Additional knowledge is used to produce values for sensitivity parameters under multiple selection criteria. The computation of values for the sensitivity parameters is complicated by the multiple inclusion/exclusion criteria, and a data learner in R is provided to facilitate their construction. For comparison and assessment of the feasibility of the bound an assumption free bound is provided using solely underlying assumptions in the framework of potential outcomes.
Publisher
Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Subject
Applied Mathematics,Epidemiology
Reference33 articles.
1. Berhan, Y., I. Waernbaum, T. Lind, A. Möllsten, G. Dahlquist, and S. C. D. S. Group. 2011. “Thirty Years of Prospective Nationwide Incidence of Childhood Type 1 Diabetes: The Accelerating Increase by Time Tends to Level off in sweden.” Diabetes 60 (2): 577–81, https://doi.org/10.2337/db10-0813. 2. de Araújo, T. V. B., R. A. D. A. Ximenes, D. D. B. Miranda-Filho, W. V. Souza, U. R. Montarroyos, A. P. L. de Melo, S. Valongueiro, M. D. F. P. M. de Albuquerque, C. Braga, S. P. B. Filho, M. T. Cordeiro, E. Vazquez, D. D. C. S. Cruz, C. M. P. Henriques, L. C. A. Bezerra, P. M. D. S. Castanha, R. Dhalia, E. T. A. Marques-Júnior, C. M. T. Martelli, L. C. Rodriques, C. Dhalia, M. Santos, F. Cortes, W. Kleber de Oliviera, G. Evelim Coelho, J. J. Cortez-Escalante, C. F. Campelo de Albuquerque de Melo, P. Ramon-Pardo, S. Aldighieri, J. Mendez-Rico, M. Espinal, L. Torres, A. Nassri Hazin, A. Van der Linden, M. Coentro, G. Santiago Dimech, R. Siqueira de Assunaco, P. Ismael de Carvalho, and V. Felix Oliveira. 2018. “Association between Microcephaly, Zika Virus Infection, and Other Risk Factors in Brazil: Final Report of a Case-Control Study.” The Lancet Infectious Diseases 18 (3): 328–36, https://doi.org/10.1016/s1473-3099(17)30727-2. 3. Ding, P., and L. W. Miratrix. 2015. “To Adjust or Not to Adjust? Sensitivity Analysis of M-Bias and Butterfly-Bias.” Journal of Causal Inference 3 (1): 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1515/jci-2013-0021. 4. Ding, P., and T. J. VanderWeele. 2016. “Sensitivity Analysis without Assumptions.” Epidemiology 27 (3): 368. https://doi.org/10.1097/ede.0000000000000457. 5. Flanders, W. D., and M. J. Khoury. 1990. “Indirect Assessment of Confounding: Graphic Description and Limits on Effect of Adjusting for Covariates.” Epidemiology 1 (3): 239–46. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001648-199005000-00010.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|