Unmeasured confounding is one of the most important threats to the validity of observational studies. In this paper we scrutinize a recently proposed sensitivity analysis for unmeasured confounding. The analysis requires specification of two parameters, loosely defined as the maximal strength of association that an unmeasured confounder may have with the exposure and with the outcome, respectively. The E-value is defined as the strength of association that the confounder must have with the exposure and the outcome, to fully explain away (...) an observed exposure-outcome association. We derive the feasible region of the sensitivity analysis parameters, and we show that the bounds produced by the sensitivity analysis are not always sharp. We finally establish a region in which the bounds are guaranteed to be sharp, and we discuss the implications of this sharp region for the interpretation of the E-value. We illustrate the theory with a real data example and a simulation. (shrink)

It is well-known that dichotomization can cause bias and loss of efficiency in estimation. One can easily construct examples where adjusting for a dichotomized confounder causes bias in causal estimation. There are additional examples in the literature where adjusting for a dichotomized confounder can be more biased than not adjusting at all. The message is clear, do not dichotomize. What is unclear is if there are scenarios where adjusting for the dichotomized confounder always leads to lower bias than not adjusting. (...) We propose several sets of conditions that characterize scenarios where one should always adjust for the dichotomized confounder to reduce bias. We then highlight scenarios where the decision to adjust should be made more cautiously. To our knowledge, this is the first formal presentation of conditions that give information about when one should and potentially should not adjust for a dichotomized confounder. (shrink)

Residual confounding is a common source of bias in observational studies. In this article, we build upon a series of sensitivity analyses methods for residual confounding developed by Brumback et al. and Chiba whose sensitivity parameters are constructed to quantify deviation from conditional exchangeability, given measured confounders. These sensitivity parameters are combined with the observed data to produce a “bias-corrected” estimate of the causal effect of interest. We provide important generalizations of these sensitivity analyses, by allowing for arbitrary exposures and (...) a wide range of different causal effect measures, through the specification of the target causal effect as a parameter in a generalized linear model with the arbitrary link function. We show how our generalized sensitivity analysis can be easily implemented with standard software, and how its sensitivity parameters can be calibrated against measured confounders. We demonstrate our sensitivity analysis with an application to publicly available data from a cohort study of behavior patterns and coronary heart disease. (shrink)

Biological and epidemiological phenomena are often measured with error or imperfectly captured in data. When the true state of this imperfect measure is a confounder of an outcome exposure relationship of interest, it was previously widely believed that adjustment for the mismeasured observed variables provides a less biased estimate of the true average causal effect than not adjusting. However, this is not always the case and depends on both the nature of the measurement and confounding. We describe two sets of (...) conditions under which adjusting for a non-deferentially mismeasured proxy comes closer to the unidentifiable true average causal effect than the unadjusted or crude estimate. The first set of conditions apply when the exposure is discrete or continuous and the confounder is ordinal, and the expectation of the outcome is monotonic in the confounder for both treatment levels contrasted. The second set of conditions apply when the exposure and the confounder are categorical. In all settings, the mismeasurement must be non-differential, as differential mismeasurement, particularly an unknown pattern, can cause unpredictable results. (shrink)

Unmeasured confounding is an important threat to the validity of observational studies. A common way to deal with unmeasured confounding is to compute bounds for the causal effect of interest, that is, a range of values that is guaranteed to include the true effect, given the observed data. Recently, bounds have been proposed that are based on sensitivity parameters, which quantify the degree of unmeasured confounding on the risk ratio scale. These bounds can be used to compute an E-value, that (...) is, the degree of confounding required to explain away an observed association, on the risk ratio scale. We complement and extend this previous work by deriving analogous bounds, based on sensitivity parameters on the risk difference scale. We show that our bounds can also be used to compute an E-value, on the risk difference scale. We compare our novel bounds with previous bounds through a real data example and a simulation study. (shrink)