Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25692223›Full record

ArticleEpidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)2015

Instrumental variable estimation in a survival context.

Eric J Tchetgen Tchetgen, Stefan Walter, Stijn Vansteelandt, Torben Martinussen, Maria Glymour

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

72 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Evidence triangulation in health research.European journal of epidemiology · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Eric J Tchetgen TchetgenFrom the aDepartments of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Harvard University, Boston, MA; bDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, CA; cDepartment Applied Mathematics, Computer Science and Statistics, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium; and dDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Stefan Walter
Stijn Vansteelandt
Torben Martinussen
Maria Glymour

Funding

Identification and Inference for Longitudinal Causal Mediation Analysis in HIVR01AI104459 · NIAID · HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI SHPITSER, ILYA, VANDERWEELE, TYLER · 2013 to 2017
$2.0M
Using GWAS Data for Enhanced Mendelian Randomization StudiesRC4MH092707 · NIMH · HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI KUBZANSKY, LAURA D · 2010 to 2010
$1.5M
Semiparametric Methods for Gene-environment InteractionR01ES020337 · NIEHS · HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI TCHETGEN TCHETGEN, ERIC JOEL · 2012 to 2015
$1.4M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI104459NIAID NIH HHS R01AI104459NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES020337NIMH NIH HHS RC4 MH092707NIMH NIH HHS RC4MH092707
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bias due to unobserved confounding can seldom be ruled out with certainty when estimating the causal effect of a nonrandomized treatment. The instrumental variable (IV) design offers, under certain assumptions, the opportunity to tame confounding bias, without directly observing all confounders. The IV approach is very well developed in the context of linear regression and also for certain generalized linear models with a nonlinear link function. However, IV methods are not as well developed for regression analysis with a censored survival outcome. In this article, we develop the IV approach for regression analysis in a survival context, primarily under an additive hazards model, for which we describe 2 simple methods for estimating causal effects. The first method is a straightforward 2-stage regression approach analogous to 2-stage least squares commonly used for IV analysis in linear regression. In this approach, the fitted value from a first-stage regression of the exposure on the IV is entered in place of the exposure in the second-stage hazard model to recover a valid estimate of the treatment effect of interest. The second method is a so-called control function approach, which entails adding to the additive hazards outcome model, the residual from a first-stage regression of the exposure on the IV. Formal conditions are given justifying each strategy, and the methods are illustrated in a novel application to a Mendelian randomization study to evaluate the effect of diabetes on mortality using data from the Health and Retirement Study. We also establish that analogous strategies can also be used under a proportional hazards model specification, provided the outcome is rare over the entire follow-up.

Indexed as

Confounding Factors, EpidemiologicSurvival AnalysisCausalityDiabetes MellitusHumansLinear ModelsMendelian Randomization AnalysisModels, StatisticalProportional Hazards Models

Identifiers

PMID25692223
PMCPMC4387894

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.