Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29187828›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychology2017

On the Interpretation and Use of Mediation: Multiple Perspectives on Mediation Analysis.

Robert Agler, Paul De Boeck

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 132 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
132citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

132 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Do white matter hyperintensities account for the relationship between discrimination and memory?Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

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

2 authors.

Robert AglerDepartment of Psychology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.
Paul De BoeckDepartment of Psychology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mediation analysis has become a very popular approach in psychology, and it is one that is associated with multiple perspectives that are often at odds, often implicitly. Explicitly discussing these perspectives and their motivations, advantages, and disadvantages can help to provide clarity to conversations and research regarding the use and refinement of mediation models. We discuss five such pairs of perspectives on mediation analysis, their associated advantages and disadvantages, and their implications: with vs. without a mediation hypothesis, specific effects vs. a global model, directness vs. indirectness of causation, effect size vs. null hypothesis testing, and hypothesized vs. alternative explanations. Discussion of the perspectives is facilitated by a small simulation study. Some philosophical and linguistic considerations are briefly discussed, as well as some other perspectives we do not develop here.

Indexed as

causationdirect effectindirect effectmediationtotal effect

Identifiers

PMID29187828
PMCPMC5694788

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.