Cited by 87Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Improving bias and coverage in instrumental variable analysis with weak instruments for continuous and binary outcomes

Burgess, Stephen, Thompson, Simon G.·2012·Statistics in Medicine

Abstract

Causal estimates can be obtained by instrumental variable analysis using a two‐stage method. However, these can be biased when the instruments are weak. We introduce a Bayesian method, which adjusts for the first‐stage residuals in the second‐stage regression and has much improved bias and coverage properties. In the continuous outcome case, this adjustment reduces median bias from weak instruments to close to zero. In the binary outcome case, bias from weak instruments is reduced and the estimand is changed from a marginal population‐based effect to a conditional effect. The lack of distributional assumptions on the posterior distribution of the causal effect gives a better summary of uncertainty and more accurate coverage levels than methods that rely on the asymptotic distribution of the causal estimate. We discuss these properties in the context of Mendelian randomization. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sim.4498

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Burgess, S., & Thompson, S. G.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Burgess, Stephen
Venue
Statistics in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-02-29
Volume
31
Issue
15
Pages
1582-1600
ISSN
  • 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0258
OpenAlex
W1997254444
Cited by
87
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
FWCI
4.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Statistics in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • British Heart Foundation (RG/08/014/24067)
  • Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
weak instruments, instrumental variables, two-stage least squares, bias mitigation, coverage properties, binary outcomes, continuous outcomes, Mendelian randomization, uncertainty quantification
MeSH terms
Bayes Theorem, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Risk Factors, Bias, Causality, Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic, Mendelian Randomization Analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review