PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11914314

Fallibility in estimating direct effects.

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.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Stephen R Cole, Miguel A Hernán. 2002. Fallibility in estimating direct effects.. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije%2F31.1.163

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Comparison of triflusal and aspirin for prevention of vascular events in patients after cerebral infarction: the TACIP Study: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The efficacy of the antiplatelet agent triflusal for prevention of vascular events after stroke has been reported in a pilot study. However, there is a need to confirm those results in a larger study. METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blind, multicenter study to test the efficacy of triflusal (600 mg/d) versus aspirin (325 mg/d) for prevention of vascular events in patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack (Triflusal versus Aspirin in Cerebral Infarction Prevention [TACIP]). We assessed a combined end point (incidence of nonfatal ischemic stroke, nonfatal acute myocardial infarction, or vascular death) as well as the incidence of these events separately and the incidence of major hemorrhage. RESULTS: Of 2113 patients, 1058 received triflusal and 1055 aspirin. The mean follow-up period was 30.1 months. The incidence of combined end point (13.1% for triflusal, 12.4% for aspirin) as well the survival analysis (hazard ratio [HR] for triflusal versus aspirin, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.38) showed no differences between groups. The incidence of nonfatal stroke (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.44), nonfatal acute myocardial infarction (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.46 to 1.98,) and vascular death (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.96) was also similar. A significantly higher incidence of major hemorrhages in the aspirin group was recorded (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.82). The overall incidence of hemorrhage was significantly lower in the triflusal group (16.7% versus 25.2%) (odds ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.86; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study failed to show significantly superior efficacy of triflusal over aspirin in the long-term prevention of vascular events after stroke, but triflusal was associated with a significantly lower rate of hemorrhagic complications.

Aspirin↗