ArticleInternational journal of epidemiology2018
The challenging interpretation of instrumental variable estimates under monotonicity.
Article in International journal of epidemiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A review of the relationship between dimensions of alcohol consumption and the burden of disease: 2026 update including Mendelian randomisation studies.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2026Pooled it
- Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology using Mendelian randomization (STROBE-MR): a Korean translation of explanation and elaboration.Ewha medical journal · 2025Guideline
- Demystifying inconsistent two-sample mendelian randomization estimations using selection diagram.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Acute Surgery vs Conservative Treatment for Traumatic Acute Subdural Hematoma.JAMA network open · 2025Observational
- From Clinic to Mechanisms: Multi-Omics Provide New Insights into Cerebrospinal Fluid Metabolites and the Spectrum of Psychiatric Disorders.Molecular neurobiology · 2025Article
- A systematic approach to evaluating instrumental variable assumptions: applied example of glucose-lowering medications and risk for hospitalized heart failure in older adults.American journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Unraveling the brain-joint axis: genetic, transcriptomic, and cohort insights from neuroticism to osteoarthritis.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2025Article
- The role of estimation in Mendelian randomization: should Mendelian randomization investigations provide estimates?AJE advances : research in epidemiology · 2025Article
- Risk associated circulating biomarkers S100A3 identified in congenital heart disease-associated pulmonary arterial hypertension.Intractable & rare diseases research · 2025Article
- A Review of Mendelian Randomization: Assumptions, Methods, and Application to Obesity-Related Diseases.Journal of obesity & metabolic syndrome · 2025Review
- Doubly robust machine learning-based estimation methods for instrumental variables with an application to surgical care for cholecystitis.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A, (Statistics in Society) · 2024Article
- Article
- To treat or not to treat: a comparative effectiveness analysis of oral anticoagulant outcomes among U.S. nursing home residents with atrial fibrillation.BMC geriatrics · 2024Article
- Influence of body mass index on health complains and life satisfaction.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Associations between special diet and incidence risk of osteoporosis: a Mendelian randomization study.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Effect of Duration of Education on Sexual Activity and the Mediating Role of Illness in Later Life: A Natural Experiment in English Schooling Reform.Archives of sexual behavior · 2024Article
- Opportunities and challenges in using instrumental variables to study causal effects in nonrandomized stress and trauma research.Psychological trauma : theory, research, practice and policy · 2023Review
- Comparative effectiveness of decompressive craniectomy versus craniotomy for traumatic acute subdural hematoma (CENTER-TBI): an observational cohort study.EClinicalMedicine · 2023Article
- A framework for assessing selection and misclassification bias in mendelian randomisation studies: an illustrative example between body mass index and covid-19.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Article
- Comparison of intergenerational instrumental variable analyses of body mass index and mortality in UK Biobank.International journal of epidemiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Instrumental variable (IV) methods are often used to identify 'local' causal effects in a subgroup of the population of interest. Such 'local' effects may not be ideal for informing clinical or policy decision making. When the instrument is non-causal, additional difficulties arise for interpreting 'local' effects. Little attention has been paid to these difficulties, even though commonly proposed instruments in epidemiology are non-causal (e.g. proxies for physician's preference; genetic variants in some Mendelian randomization studies). Methods: For IV estimates obtained from both causal and non-causal instruments under monotonicity, we present results to help investigators pose four questions about the local effect estimates obtained in their studies. (1) To what subgroup of the population does the effect pertain? Can we (2) estimate the size of or (3) describe the characteristics of this subgroup relative to the study population? (4) Can the sensitivity of the effect estimate to deviations from monotonicity be quantified? Results: We show that the common interpretations and approaches for answering these four questions are generally only appropriate in the case of causal instruments. Conclusions: Appropriate interpretation of an IV estimate under monotonicity as a 'local' effect critically depends on whether the proposed instrument is causal or non-causal. The results and formal proofs presented here can help in the transparent reporting of IV results and in enhancing the use of IV estimates in informing decision-making efforts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.