Abstract
Abstract
Background
There are a growing number of studies using mediation analysis to understand the mechanisms of health interventions and exposures. Recent work has shown that the reporting of these studies is heterogenous and incomplete. This problem stifles clinical application, reproducibility, and evidence synthesis. This paper describes the processes and methods that will be used to develop a guideline for reporting studies of mediation analyses (AGReMA).
Methods/design
AGReMA will be developed over five overlapping stages. Stage one will comprise a systematic review to examine relevant evidence on the quality of reporting in published studies that use mediation analysis. In the second stage we will consult a group of methodologists and applied researchers by using a Delphi process to identify items that should be considered for inclusion in AGReMA. The third stage will involve a consensus meeting to consolidate and prioritise key items to be included in AGReMA. The fourth stage will involve the production of AGReMA and an accompanying explanation and elaboration document. In the final stage we will disseminate the AGReMA statement via journals, conferences, and professional meetings across multiple disciplines.
Discussion
The development and implementation of AGReMA will improve the standardization, transparency, and completeness in the reporting of studies that use mediation analysis to understand the mechanisms of health interventions and exposures.
Funder
the US Berkeley Initiative for Transparency in the Social Sciences and the Center for Effective Global Action
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Health Informatics,Epidemiology
Reference29 articles.
1. Cashin AG, Lee H, Lamb SE, Hopewell S, Mansell G, Williams CM, et al. An overview of systematic reviews found suboptimal reporting and methodological limitations of mediation studies investigating causal mechanisms. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;111:60–78.
2. Nguyen TQ, Schmid I, Stuart EA. Clarifying causal mediation analysis for the applied researcher: defining effects based on what we want to learn. 2019; Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/1904.08515
3. Lee H, Herbert RD, Lamb SE, Moseley AM, McAuley JH. Investigating causal mechanisms in randomised controlled trials. Trials. 2019;20:524.
4. Lee H, Herbert RD, Mcauley JH. Mediation analysis. JAMA. 2019;321(7):697–698
5. Liu S, Ulbricht CM, Chrysanthopoulou SA, Lapane KL. Implementation and reporting of causal mediation analysis in 2015: a systematic review in epidemiological studies. BMC Res Notes. 2016;9:354.
Cited by
12 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