Fallibility in estimating direct effects

457Citations
Citations of this article
331Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

We use causal graphs and a partly hypothetical example from the Physicians' Health Study to explain why a common standard method for quantifying direct effects (i.e. stratifying on the intermediate variable) may be flawed. Estimating direct effects without bias requires that two assumptions hold, namely the absence of unmeasured confounding for (1) exposure and outcome, and (2) the intermediate variable and outcome. Recommendations include collecting and incorporating potential confounders for the causal effect of the mediator on the outcome, as well as the causal effect of the exposure on the outcome, and clearly stating the additional assumption that there is no unmeasured confounding for the causal effect of the mediator on the outcome.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Cole, S. R., & Hernán, M. A. (2002). Fallibility in estimating direct effects. International Journal of Epidemiology, 31(1), 163–165. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/31.1.163

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free