A counterfactual approach to bias and effect modification in terms of response types

BMC Medical Research Methodology (Impact Factor: 2.17). 07/2013; 13(1):101. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-101
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The counterfactual approach provides a clear and coherent framework to think about a variety of important concepts related to causation. Meanwhile, directed acyclic graphs have been used as causal diagrams in epidemiologic research to visually summarize hypothetical relations among variables of interest, providing a clear understanding of underlying causal structures of bias and effect modification. In this study, the authors aim to further clarify the concepts of bias (confounding bias and selection bias) and effect modification in the counterfactual framework.
The authors show how theoretical data frequencies can be described by using unobservable response types both in observational studies and in randomized controlled trials. By using the descriptions of data frequencies, the authors show epidemiologic measures in terms of response types, demonstrating significant distinctions between association measures and effect measures. These descriptions also demonstrate sufficient conditions to estimate effect measures in observational studies. To illustrate the ideas, the authors show how directed acyclic graphs can be extended by integrating response types and observed variables.
This study shows a hitherto unrecognized sufficient condition to estimate effect measures in observational studies by adjusting for confounding bias. The present findings would provide a further understanding of the assumption of conditional exchangeability, clarifying the link between the assumptions for making causal inferences in observational studies and the counterfactual approach. The extension of directed acyclic graphs using response types maintains the integrity of the original directed acyclic graphs, which allows one to understand the underlying causal structure discussed in this study.
The present findings highlight that analytic adjustment for confounders in observational studies has consequences quite different from those of physical control in randomized controlled trials. In particular, the present findings would be of great use when demonstrating the inherent distinctions between observational studies and randomized controlled trials.

Download full-text


Available from: Toshihide Tsuda, Feb 10, 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Epidemiologic textbooks and methodological papers define multiple causal effects. These causal effects can differ substantially; yet, the causal effect of interest is rarely specified in published epidemiologic studies perhaps because their distinctions are underappreciated. Here, we provide an organizational schema that distinguishes causal effects based on six characteristics. We use simple numeric examples to demonstrate the variability across effects and show why specifying the causal effect is necessary for an accurate intervention interpretation even under the simplest scenarios. The objective of our schema was to illuminate the distinguishing characteristics of various causal effects and clarify their interpretation, thus guiding epidemiologists in choosing an appropriate causal effect to estimate.
    Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) 11/2013; 25(1). DOI:10.1097/EDE.0000000000000005 · 6.18 Impact Factor
  • Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) 07/2014; 25(4):618-619. DOI:10.1097/EDE.0000000000000114 · 6.18 Impact Factor