Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22157298›Full record

ArticleEpidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)2012

Conditioning on intermediates in perinatal epidemiology.

Tyler J VanderWeele, Sunni L Mumford, Enrique F Schisterman

Erratum issuedOpen access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 116 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
116citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
14.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

116 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 212 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Effects of maternal education on maternal and perinatal outcomes: An individual participant data meta-analysis of 2 356 402 pregnancies.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Unmeasured mediator-outcome confounding distorts both indirect and direct effects.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

56 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Tyler J VanderWeeleDepartments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, USA. tvanderw@hsph.harvard.edu
Sunni L Mumford
Enrique F Schisterman
National Institutes of Health · USHarvard University · US

Funding

Oxidative Stress, Hormones and Women s HealthZIAHD008762 · NICHD · EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT · PI PERKINS, NEIL · 2009 to 2025
$3.1M
ROC Curve MethodologyZIAHD008761 · NICHD · EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT · PI SCHISTERMAN, ENRIQUE F. · 2009 to 2021
$2.1M
Bounds for direct and indirect effects with application to perinatal epidemiologyR03HD060696 · NICHD · HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI VANDERWEELE, TYLER · 2010 to 2011
$169k
NICHD NIH HHS HD060696NICHD NIH HHS R03 HD060696
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is common practice in perinatal epidemiology to calculate gestational-age-specific or birth-weight-specific associations between an exposure and a perinatal outcome. Gestational age or birth weight, for example, might lie on a pathway from the exposure to the outcome. This practice of conditioning on a potential intermediate has come under critique for various reasons. First, if one is interested in assessing the overall effect of an exposure on an outcome, it is not necessary to stratify, and indeed, it is important not to stratify, on an intermediate. Second, if one does condition on an intermediate, to try to obtain what might conceived of as a "direct effect" of the exposure on the outcome, then various biases and paradoxical results can arise. It is now well documented theoretically and empirically that, when there is an unmeasured common cause of the intermediate and the outcome, associations adjusted for the intermediate are subject to bias. In this paper, we propose 3 approaches to facilitate valid inference when effects conditional on an intermediate are in view. These 3 approaches correspond to (i) conditioning on the predicted risk of the intermediate, (ii) conditioning on the intermediate itself in conjunction with sensitivity analysis, and (iii) conditioning on the subgroup of individuals for whom the intermediate would occur irrespective of the exposure received. The second and third approaches both require sensitivity analysis, and they result in a range of estimates. Each of the 3 approaches can be used to resolve the "birth-weight paradox" that exposures such as maternal smoking seem to have a protective effect among low-birth-weight infants. The various methodologic approaches described in this paper are applicable to a number of similar settings in perinatal epidemiology.

Indexed as

Birth WeightData Interpretation, StatisticalGestational AgeFemaleHumansInfant, Low Birth WeightInfant MortalityInfant, NewbornOdds RatioPerinatologyPopulation DynamicsPregnancyPrenatal Exposure Delayed EffectsRisk FactorsSmoking

Identifiers

PMID22157298
PMCPMC3240847
OpenAlexW2063298219

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.