Understanding the Assumptions Underlying Instrumental Variable Analyses: a Brief Review of Falsification Strategies and Related Tools
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Instrumental variable (IV) methods continue to be applied to questions ranging from genetic to social epidemiology. In the epidemiologic literature, discussion of whether the assumptions underlying IV analyses hold is often limited to only certain assumptions and even then, arguments are mostly made using subject matter knowledge. To complement subject matter knowledge, there exist a variety of falsification strategies and other tools for weighing the plausibility of the assumptions underlying IV analyses. RECENT FINDINGS: There are many tools that can refute the IV assumptions or help estimate the magnitude or direction of possible bias if the conditions do not hold perfectly. Many of these tools, including both recently developed strategies and strategies described decades ago, are underused or only used in specific applications of IV methods in epidemiology. SUMMARY: Although estimating causal effects with IV analyses relies on unverifiable assumptions, the assumptions can sometimes be refuted. We suggest that the epidemiologists using IV analyses employ all the falsification strategies that apply to their research question in order to avoid settings that demonstrably violate a core condition for valid inference.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
If the homogeneity assumption cannot be made, but the monotonicity assumption is plausible, then the causal estimate can be used to represent the local average treatment effect.
“If the homogeneity assumption cannot be made, but the monotonicity assumption is plausible, then the causal estimate can be used to represent the local average treatment effect.86”
From Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology using Mendelian Randomisation (STROBE-MR): explanation and elaboration. (2021) · cites this paper as [86]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 58 · Cited by 190
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [33]Hernán MA Robins JM Instruments for causal inference: an epidemiologist’s dream?: erratum Epidemiology 2014 25 1 164 16755261
- [43]Tchetgen EJT Sun B Walter S The GENIUS approach to robust Mendelian randomization inference arXiv 1709 07779 2017 1 41
- Authors
- Labrecque, J., & Swanson, S. A.
- Affiliations
- Erasmus MC (NL)
- Harvard University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Labrecque, Jeremy
- Venue
- Current Epidemiology Reports
- Published
- 2018-06-22
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 214-220
- ISSN
- 2196-2995 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6096851
- OpenAlex
- W2809105390
- Cited by
- 190
- References
- 58
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 58 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 5
- FWCI
- 1.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Current Epidemiology Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- University Medical Center Rotterdam
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Keywords
- instrumental variables, bias estimation, genetic epidemiology, social epidemiology
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