Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Journal of Epidemiology
Published in: European Journal of Epidemiology 2/2013

01-02-2013 | COMMENTARY

Unmeasured confounding and hazard scales: sensitivity analysis for total, direct, and indirect effects

Author: Tyler J. VanderWeele

Published in: European Journal of Epidemiology | Issue 2/2013

Login to get access

Excerpt

In their paper, Nordahl et al. [1] use an additive hazards model approach to examine potential behavioral mediators governing the relationship between education and coronary heart disease. They also compare and contrast their approach and results with that using a proportional hazard model. …
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Nordahl H, Rod NH, Frederiksen BL, Andersen I, Lange T, Diderichsen F, Prescott E, Overvad K, Osler M. Education and risk of coronary heart disease: Assessment of mediation by behavioral risk factors using the additive hazards model. Eur J Epidemiol. 2012. doi:10.​1007/​s10654-012-9745-z
2.
Lange T, Hansen JV. Direct and indirect effects in a survival context. Epidemiology. 2012;2011(22):575–81.
3.
VanderWeele TJ. Causal mediation analysis with survival data. Epidemiology. 2011;22:575–81.CrossRef
4.
Martinussen T, Vansteelandt S, Gerster M, von Bornemann Hjelmborg J. Estimation of direct effects for survival data by using the Aalen additive hazards model. J R Stat Soc Ser B. 2011;73:773–88.CrossRef
5.
Robins JM, Greenland S. Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology. 1992;3:143–55.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Pearl J (2001). Direct and Indirect Effects. In: Proceedings of the seventeenth conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, pp 411–420.
7.
VanderWeele TJ, Vansteelandt S. Odds ratios for mediation analysis with a dichotomous outcome. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172:1339–48.PubMedCrossRef
8.
VanderWeele TJ. Bias formulas for sensitivity analysis for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology. 2010;21:540–51.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Imai K, Keele L, Tingley D. A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Psychol Methods. 2010;15(4):309–34.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Valeri L, VanderWeele TJ. Mediation analysis allowing for exposure-mediator interactions and causal interpretation: theoretical assumptions and implementation with SAS and SPSS macros. Psychol Methods (in press).
11.
Cornfield J, Haenszel W, Hammond EC, Lilienfeld AM, Shimkin MB, Wynder LL. Smoking and lung cancer: recent evidence and a discussion of some questions. J Natl Cancer Instit. 1959;22:173–203.
12.
Schlesselman JJ. Assessing effects of confounding variables. Am J Epidemiol. 1978;108:3–8.PubMed
13.
Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Assessing sensitivity to an unobserved binary covariate in an observational study with binary outcome. J R Stat Soc Ser B. 1983;45:212–8.
14.
Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL, editors. Modern epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott; 2008.
15.
VanderWeele TJ, Arah OA. Bias formulas for sensitivity analysis of unmeasured confounding for general outcomes, treatments and confounders. Epidemiology. 2011;22:42–52.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Lin DY, Psaty BM, Kronmal RA. Assessing the sensitivity of regression results to unmeasured confounders in observational studies. Biometrics. 1998;54:948–63.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Hernán MA, Robins JM. Letter to the editor of biometrics. Biometrics. 1999;55:1316–7.PubMed
18.
VanderWeele TJ. Sensitivity analysis: distributional assumptions and confounding assumptions. Biometrics. 2008;64:645–9.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ. On causal mediation analysis with a survival outcome. Int J Biostat. 2011;7(Article 33):1–38.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Unmeasured confounding and hazard scales: sensitivity analysis for total, direct, and indirect effects
Author
Tyler J. VanderWeele
Publication date
01-02-2013
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
European Journal of Epidemiology / Issue 2/2013
Print ISSN: 0393-2990
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7284
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-013-9770-6

Other articles of this Issue 2/2013

European Journal of Epidemiology 2/2013 Go to the issue

NEW STUDY

EpiHealth: a large population-based cohort study for investigation of gene–lifestyle interactions in the pathogenesis of common diseases

META-ANALYSIS

Dietary fiber consumption and risk of stroke

DIABETES MELLITUS

Twelve-year trends in the prevalence and risk factors of diabetes and prediabetes in Turkish adults

METHODS

Distinguishing true from false positives in genomic studies: p values

Letter to the Editor

Could moderate earthquakes also trigger cardiac events?

MORTALITY

Socio-economic position over the life course and all-cause, and circulatory diseases mortality at age 50–87 years: results from a Swedish birth cohort