scholarly journals Sensitivity Analysis for Unmeasured Confounding in Meta-Analyses

2019 ◽  
Vol 115 (529) ◽  
pp. 163-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maya B. Mathur ◽  
Tyler J. VanderWeele
2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 515-531 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence C McCandless ◽  
Julian M Somers

Causal mediation analysis techniques enable investigators to examine whether the effect of the exposure on an outcome is mediated by some intermediate variable. Motivated by a data example from epidemiology, we consider estimation of natural direct and indirect effects on a survival outcome. An important concern is bias from confounders that may be unmeasured. Estimating natural direct and indirect effects requires an elaborate series of assumptions in order to identify the target quantities. The analyst must carefully measure and adjust for important predictors of the exposure, mediator and outcome. Omitting important confounders may bias the results in a way that is difficult to predict. In recent years, several methods have been proposed to explore sensitivity to unmeasured confounding in mediation analysis. However, many of these methods limit complexity by relying on a handful of sensitivity parameters that are difficult to interpret, or alternatively, by assuming that specific patterns of unmeasured confounding are absent. Instead, we propose a simple Bayesian sensitivity analysis technique that is indexed by four bias parameters. Our method has the unique advantage that it is able to simultaneously assess unmeasured confounding in the mediator–outcome, exposure–outcome and exposure–mediator relationships. It is a natural Bayesian extension of the sensitivity analysis methodologies of VanderWeele, which have been widely used in the epidemiology literature. We present simulation findings, and additionally, we illustrate the method in an epidemiological study of mortality rates in criminal offenders from British Columbia.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hao Meng ◽  
Shaoyan Huang ◽  
Yali Yang ◽  
Xiaofeng He ◽  
Liping Fei ◽  
...  

Background: Since the 1990s, there have been a lot of research on single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) and different diseases, including many studies on 5,10-methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) polymorphism and essential hypertension (EH). Nevertheless, their conclusions were controversial. So far, six previous meta-analyses discussed the internal relationship between the MTHFR polymorphism and EH, respectively. However, they did not evaluate the credibility of the positive associations. To build on previous meta-analyses, we updated the literature by including previously included papers as well as nine new articles, improved the inclusion criteria by also considering the quality of the papers, and applied new statistical techniques to assess the observed associations. Objectives: This study aims to explore the degree of risk correlation between two MTHFR polymorphisms and EH. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wan Fang electronic databases were searched to identify relevant studies. We evaluated the relation between the MTHFR C677T (rs1801133) and A1298C (rs1801131) polymorphisms and EH by calculating the odds ratios (OR) as well as 95% confidence intervals (CI). Here we used subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, cumulative meta-analysis, assessment of publication bias, meta-regression meta, False-positive report probability (FPRP), Bayesian false discovery probability (BFDP), and Venice criterion. Results: Overall, harboring the variant of MTHFR C677T was associated with an increased risk of EH in the overall populations, East Asians, Southeast Asians, South Asians, Caucasians/Europeans, and Africans. After the sensitivity analysis, positive results were found only in the overall population (TT vs. CC: OR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.00–1.30, Ph = 0.032, I2 = 39.8%; TT + TC vs. CC: OR = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.01–1.29, Ph = 0.040, I2 = 38.1%; T vs. C: OR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.04–1.25, Ph = 0.005, I2 = 50.2%) and Asian population (TC vs. CC: OR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.01–1.28, Ph = 0.265, I2 = 16.8%; TT + TC vs. CC: OR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.04–1.30, Ph = 0.105, I2 = 32.9%; T vs. C: OR = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.02–1.19, Ph = 0.018, I2 = 48.6%). However, after further statistical assessment by FPRP, BFDP, and Venice criteria, the positive associations reported here could be deemed to be false-positives and present only weak evidence for a causal relationship. In addition, when we performed pooled analysis and sensitivity analysis on MTHFR A1298C; all the results were negative. Conclusion: The positive relationships between MTHFR C677T and A1298C polymorphisms with the susceptibility to present with hypertension were not robust enough to withstand statistical interrogation by FPRP, BFDP, and Venice criteria. Therefore, these SNPs are probably not important in EH etiology.


2019 ◽  
Vol 104 (4) ◽  
pp. 577-596
Author(s):  
Qi Zhou ◽  
Yoo-Mi Chin ◽  
James D. Stamey ◽  
Joon Jin Song

2017 ◽  
Vol 167 (4) ◽  
pp. 285 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Russell Localio ◽  
Catherine B. Stack ◽  
Michael E. Griswold

2011 ◽  
Vol 31 (22) ◽  
pp. 2552-2564 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tyler J. VanderWeele ◽  
Bhramar Mukherjee ◽  
Jinbo Chen

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document