Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31033689›Full record

ArticleEpidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)2019

Limits for the Magnitude of M-bias and Certain Other Types of Structural Selection Bias.

W Dana Flanders, Dongni Ye

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Collider stratification bias II: magnitude of bias.American journal of epidemiology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

W Dana FlandersDepartment of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
Dongni YeDepartment of Environmental Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

CausalityConfounding Factors, EpidemiologicData Interpretation, StatisticalEpidemiologic Research DesignModels, StatisticalSelection BiasHumans

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.