Search

In their seminal 2002 paper, "Causal Knowledge as a Prerequisite for Confounding Evaluation: An Application to Birth Defects Epidemiology," Hernán et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2002;155(2):176–184) emphasized the importance of using theory rather than data to guide confounding control, focusing on colliders as variables that share characteristics with confounders but whose control may actually introduce bias into analyses. In this commentary, we propose that the importance of this paper stems from the connection the authors made between nonexchangeability as the ultimate source of bias and structural representations of bias using directed acyclic graphs. This provided both a unified approach to conceptualizing bias and a means of distinguishing between different sources of bias, particularly confounding and selection bias. Drawing on examples from the paper, we also highlight unresolved questions about the relationship between collider bias, selection bias, and generalizability and argue that causal knowledge is a prerequisite not only for identifying confounders but also for developing any hypothesis about potential sources of bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous papers have mentioned that conditioning on a binary collider would introduce an association between its causes in at least 1 stratum. In this paper, we prove this statement and, along with intuitions, formally examine the direction and magnitude of the associations between 2 risk factors of a binary collider using interaction contrasts. Among level one of the collider, 2 variables are independent, positively associated, and negatively associated if multiplicative risk interaction contrast is equal to, more than, and less than 0, respectively; the same results hold for the other level of the collider if the multiplicative survival interaction contrast, equal to multiplicative risk interaction contrast minus the additive risk interaction contrast, is compared with 0. The strength of the association depends on the magnitude of the interaction contrast: The stronger the interaction is, the larger the magnitude of the association will be. However, the common conditional odds ratio under the homogeneity assumption will be bounded. A figure is presented that succinctly illustrates our results and helps researchers to better visualize the associations introduced upon conditioning on a collider. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The test-negative design (TND) is a popular method for evaluating vaccine effectiveness (VE). A "classical" TND study includes symptomatic individuals tested for the disease targeted by the vaccine to estimate VE against symptomatic infection. However, recent applications of the TND have attempted to estimate VE against infection by including all tested individuals, regardless of their symptoms. In this article, we use directed acyclic graphs and simulations to investigate potential biases in TND studies of COVID-19 VE arising from the use of this "alternative" approach, particularly when applied during periods of widespread testing. We show that the inclusion of asymptomatic individuals can potentially lead to collider stratification bias, uncontrolled confounding by health and healthcare-seeking behaviors (HSBs), and differential outcome misclassification. While our focus is on the COVID-19 setting, the issues discussed here may also be relevant in the context of other infectious diseases. This may be particularly true in scenarios where there is either a high baseline prevalence of infection, a strong correlation between HSBs and vaccination, different testing practices for vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, or settings where both the vaccine under study attenuates symptoms of infection and diagnostic accuracy is modified by the presence of symptoms., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.)

Selection bias has long been central in methodological discussions across epidemiology and other fields. In epidemiology, the concept of selection bias has been continually evolving over time. In this issue of the Journal, Mathur and Shpitser (Am J Epidemiol. XXXX;XXX(XX):XXXX-XXXX) present simple graphical rules for using a Single World Intervention Graph (SWIG) to assess the presence of selection bias when estimating treatment effects in both the general population and a selected sample. Notably, the authors examine the setting in which the treatment affects selection, an issue not well-addressed in the existing literature on selection bias. To place the work by Mathur and Shpitser in context, we review the evolution of the concept of selection bias in epidemiology, with a primary focus on the developments in the last 20-30 years since the introduction of causal directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) to epidemiologic research., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)