ArticleEpidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)2019
Limits for the Magnitude of M-bias and Certain Other Types of Structural Selection Bias.
Article in Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Same but Different?: A Systematic Review of the Impact of Selection and Collider Bias on Internal Validity.Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Pooled it
- Investigations of sharp bounds for causal effects under selection bias.Statistical methods in medical research · 2025Article
- Collider stratification bias II: magnitude of bias.American journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Causal feature selection using a knowledge graph combining structured knowledge from the biomedical literature and ontologies: A use case studying depression as a risk factor for Alzheimer's disease.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2023Article
- Analyzing Selection Bias for Credible Causal Inference: When in Doubt, DAG It Out.Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStructural selection bias and confounding are key threats to validity of causal effect estimation. Here, we consider M-bias, a type of selection bias, described by Hernán et al as a situation wherein bias is caused by selecting on a variable that is caused by two other variables, one a cause of the exposure, the other a cause of the outcome. Our goals are to derive a bound for (the maximum) M-bias, explore through examples the magnitude of M-bias, illustrate how to apply the bound for other types of selection bias, and provide a program for directly calculating M-bias and the bound.
methodsWe derive a bound for selection bias assuming specific, causal relationships that characterize M-bias and further evaluate it using simulations.
resultsThrough examples, we show that, in many plausible situations, M-bias will tend to be small. In some examples, the bias is not small-but plausibility of the examples, ultimately to be judged by the researcher, may be low. The examples also show how the M-bias bound yields bounds for other types of selection bias and also for confounding. The latter illustrates how Lee's bound for confounding can arise as a limiting case of ours.
conclusionsWe have derived a new bound for M-bias. Examples illustrate how to apply it with other types of selection bias. They also show that it can yield tighter bounds in certain situations than a previously published bound for M-bias. Our examples suggest that M-bias may often, but not uniformly, be small.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31033689What 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.