Cited by 190Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Understanding the Assumptions Underlying Instrumental Variable Analyses: a Brief Review of Falsification Strategies and Related Tools

Open access
Labrecque, Jeremy, Swanson, Sonja A.·2018·Current Epidemiology Reports

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40471-018-0152-1

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

  1. [33]Hernán MA Robins JM Instruments for causal inference: an epidemiologist’s dream?: erratum Epidemiology 2014 25 1 164 16755261
  2. [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)
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
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