Search

Selection bias remains a subject of controversy. Existing definitions of selection bias are ambiguous. To improve communication and the conduct of epidemiologic research focused on estimating causal effects, we propose to unify the various existing definitions of selection bias in the literature by considering any bias away from the true causal effect in the referent population (the population before the selection process), due to selecting the sample from the referent population, as selection bias. Given this unified definition, selection bias can be further categorized into two broad types: type 1 selection bias owing to restricting to one or more level(s) of a collider (or a descendant of a collider) and type 2 selection bias owing to restricting to one or more level(s) of an effect measure modifier. To aid in explaining these two types-which can co-occur-we start by reviewing the concepts of the target population, the study sample, and the analytic sample. Then, we illustrate both types of selection bias using causal diagrams. In addition, we explore the differences between these two types of selection bias, and describe methods to minimize selection bias. Finally, we use an example of "M-bias" to demonstrate the advantage of classifying selection bias into these two types. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Electronic health records (EHRs) offer unprecedented opportunities to answer epidemiologic questions. However, unlike in ordinary cohort studies or randomized trials, EHR data are collected somewhat idiosyncratically. In particular, patients who have more contact with the medical system have more opportunities to receive diagnoses, which are then recorded in their EHRs. The goal of this article is to shed light on the nature and scope of this phenomenon, known as informative presence, which can bias estimates of associations. We show how this can be characterized as an instance of misclassification bias. As a consequence, we show that informative presence bias can occur in a broader range of settings than previously thought, and that simple adjustment for the number of visits as a confounder may not fully correct for bias. Additionally, where previous work has considered only underdiagnosis, investigators are often concerned about overdiagnosis; we show how this changes the settings in which bias manifests. We report on a comprehensive series of simulations to shed light on when to expect informative presence bias, how it can be mitigated in some cases, and cases in which new methods need to be developed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For many research questions in perinatal epidemiology, gestational age is a mediator that features the causal pathway between exposure and outcome. A mediator is an intermediate variable between an exposure and outcome, which is influenced by the exposure on the causal pathway to the outcome. Therefore, conventional analyses that adjust, stratify, or match for gestational age or its proxy (eg, preterm vs term deliveries) are problematic. This practice, which is entrenched in perinatal research, induces an overadjustment bias. Depending on the causal question, it may be inappropriate to adjust (or condition) for a mediator, such as gestational age, by either design or statistical analysis, but its effect can be quantified through causal mediation analysis. In an exposition of such methods, we demonstrated the relationship between the exposure and outcome and provided a formal analytical framework to quantify the extent to which a causal effect is influenced by a mediator. We reviewed concepts of confounding and causal inference, introduced the concept of a mediator and illustrated the perils of adjusting for a mediator in an exposure-outcome paradigm for a given causal question, adopted causal methods that call for an evaluation of a mediator in a causal exposure effect on the outcome, and discussed unmeasured confounding assumptions in mediation analysis. Furthermore, we reviewed other developments in the causal mediation analysis literature, including decomposition of a total effect when the mediator interacts with the exposure (4-way decomposition), methods for multiple mediators, mediation methods for case-control studies, mediation methods for time-to-event outcomes, sample size and power analysis for mediation analysis, and available software to apply these methods. To illustrate these methods, we provided a clinical example to estimate the risk of perinatal mortality (outcome) concerning placental abruption (exposure) and to determine the extent to which preterm delivery (mediator; a proxy for gestational age) plays a role in this causal effect. We hoped that the adoption of mediation methods described in this review will move research in perinatal epidemiology away from biased adjustments of mediators toward a more nuanced quantification of effects that pose unique challenges and provide unique insights in our field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]