Cited by 22Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Invited Commentary: Dealing With the Inevitable Deficiencies of Bias Analysis—and All Analyses

Open access
Greenland, Sander·2021·American Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

Lash et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2021;190(8):1604-1612) have presented detailed critiques of 3 bias analyses that they identify as "suboptimal." This identification raises the question of what "optimal" means for bias analysis, because it is practically impossible to do statistically optimal analyses of typical population studies-with or without bias analysis. At best the analysis can only attempt to satisfy practice guidelines and account for available information both within and outside the study. One should not expect a full accounting for all sources of uncertainty; hence, interval estimates and distributions for causal effects should never be treated as valid uncertainty assessments-they are instead only example analyses that follow from collections of often questionable assumptions. These observations reinforce those of Lash et al. and point to the need for more development of methods for judging bias-parameter distributions and utilization of available information.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/aje/kwab069

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 actual risk ratio for the effect was 1.4 (the risk ratio of the combined AESI analysis), it could be quite difficult to unambiguously replicate it with observational data given concerns about systematic as well as random errors.

    “If the actual risk ratio for the effect was 1.4 (the risk ratio of the combined AESI analysis), it could be quite difficult to unambiguously replicate it with observational data given concerns about systematic as well as random errors. [33-35].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Greenland, S.
Affiliations
University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Greenland, Sander
Venue
American Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2021-03-29
Volume
190
Issue
8
Pages
1617-1621
ISSN
  • 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-6256
OpenAlex
W3143437651
Cited by
22
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of California, Los Angeles
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
bias assessment, uncertainty analysis, causal effect estimation, interval estimates, statistical optimality, population studies, generalizability, methodological critique
MeSH terms
Humans, Research Design, Bias, Causality

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