Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27439301›Full record

SynthesisBMC research notes2016

Implementation and reporting of causal mediation analysis in 2015: a systematic review in epidemiological studies.

Shao-Hsien Liu, Christine M Ulbricht, Stavroula A Chrysanthopoulou, Kate L Lapane

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC research notes, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. A Systematic Review of the Reporting Quality of Observational Studies That Use Mediation Analyses.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Practical challenges in mediation analysis: a guide for applied researchers.Health services & outcomes research methodology · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Medical Complexity Mediates Healthcare Resource Use in the Socially Vulnerable.Journal of healthcare management / American College of Healthcare Executives · 2022
    Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Shao-Hsien LiuClinical and Population Health Research Program, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School, 368 Plantation Street, Worcester, MA, 01655, USA. shaohsien.liu@umassmed.edu.
Christine M UlbrichtDivision of Epidemiology of Chronic Diseases and Vulnerable Populations, Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, 01605, USA.
Stavroula A ChrysanthopoulouDivision of Biostatistics and Health Services Research, Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, 01605, USA.
Kate L LapaneDivision of Epidemiology of Chronic Diseases and Vulnerable Populations, Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, 01605, USA.

Funding

Opioids and Adjuvants for Pain in Nursing Home Residents with CancerR21CA198172 · NCI · UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS MED SCH WORCESTER · PI LAPANE, KATE L · 2015 to 2016
$551k
In-hospital Antipsychotic Use among Elderly Patients Discharged to Nursing HomesR21AG046839 · NIA · UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS MED SCH WORCESTER · PI LAPANE, KATE L · 2014 to 2015
$454k
NCI NIH HHS R21 CA198172NIA NIH HHS R21 AG046839
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCausal mediation analysis is often used to understand the impact of variables along the causal pathway of an occurrence relation. How well studies apply and report the elements of causal mediation analysis remains unknown.

methodsWe systematically reviewed epidemiological studies published in 2015 that employed causal mediation analysis to estimate direct and indirect effects of observed associations between an exposure on an outcome. We identified potential epidemiological studies through conducting a citation search within Web of Science and a keyword search within PubMed. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility. For eligible studies, one reviewer performed data extraction, and a senior epidemiologist confirmed the extracted information. Empirical application and methodological details of the technique were extracted and summarized.

resultsThirteen studies were eligible for data extraction. While the majority of studies reported and identified the effects of measures, most studies lacked sufficient details on the extent to which identifiability assumptions were satisfied. Although most studies addressed issues of unmeasured confounders either from empirical approaches or sensitivity analyses, the majority did not examine the potential bias arising from the measurement error of the mediator. Some studies allowed for exposure-mediator interaction and only a few presented results from models both with and without interactions. Power calculations were scarce.

conclusionsReporting of causal mediation analysis is varied and suboptimal. Given that the application of causal mediation analysis will likely continue to increase, developing standards of reporting of causal mediation analysis in epidemiological research would be prudent.

Indexed as

CausalityEpidemiologic StudiesModels, StatisticalBiasHumansCausal inferenceCausalityCausal mediation analysisSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID27439301
PMCPMC4955118

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.