The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Items for consideration in a reporting guideline for mediation analyses: a Delphi study
Abstract
Objectives: Mediation analysis is a widely used quantitative method for investigating how interventions and exposures in randomised controlled trials and observational studies have an effect on healthcare outcomes. This study aimed to assess the importance of items that should be considered in a consensus meeting aimed at developing a guideline for reporting mediation analyses. Design: International online Delphi study. Participants: International experts in the development and application of mediation analysis. Main outcome measures: The Delphi panel were asked to rate the importance of a list of items for inclusion in a guideline for reporting mediation analyses. Thresholds for disagreement and consensus on importance for inclusion were specified a priori. We used the Research ANd Development/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness method to quantitatively assess the importance for inclusion and panel agreement. Results: Nineteen expert panellists (10 female) from seven countries agreed to participate. All panellists contributed to all three rounds conducted between 10 June 2019 and 6 November 2019. The panel reached consensus on 34 unique reporting items for study design, analytic procedures and effect estimates, with three items rated ‘optional’. Panellists added one extra item and provided 60 qualitative comments for item refinement and prioritisation. Conclusion: This Delphi study used a rigorous consensus process to reach consensus on 34 reporting items for studies that use mediation analysis. These results will inform a consensus meeting that will consolidate a core set of recommended items for reporting mediation analyses.
Overview
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
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“we added three criteria based on a previous mediation review and on qualitative work informing reporting guidelines for studies of mediation [15, 28].”
From Mediators of socioeconomic inequalities in preterm birth: a systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as [28]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Diamond, I. R., Grant, R. C., Feldman, B. M., Pencharz, P. B., Ling, S. C., Moore, A. M., & Wales, P. W. (2014) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.002 · Cited by 3,740
Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use
Fink, A., Kosecoff, J., Chassin, M., & Brook, R. H. (1984) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.74.9.979 · Cited by 2,089
Boulkedid, R., Abdoul, H., Loustau, M., Sibony, O., & Alberti, C. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020476 · Cited by 2,045
Staniszewska, S., Brett, J., Simera, I., Seers, K., Mockford, C., Goodlad, S., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., Barber, R., Denegri, S., et al. (2017) · Research Involvement and Engagement · doi:10.1186/s40900-017-0062-2 · Cited by 1,643
Sinha, I. P., Smyth, R. L., & Williamson, P. R. (2011) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000393 · Cited by 891
Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT): Modified Delphi Study
Slade, S. C., Dionne, C. E., Underwood, M., Buchbinder, R., Beck, B., Bennell, K., Brosseau, L., Costa, L., Cramp, F., Cup, E., et al. (2016) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.2522/ptj.20150668 · Cited by 478
Cashin, A. G., Lee, H., Lamb, S. E., Hopewell, S., Mansell, G., Williams, C. M., Kamper, S. J., Henschke, N., & McAuley, J. H. (2019) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.03.005 · Cited by 36
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 26
- 10.1136/bmj.h1258 · DOI · Paper page
- Lee, 2019, Investigating causal mechanisms in randomised controlled trials, Trials, 20, 10.1186/s13063-019-3593-z · DOI
- Lange, 2017, Applied mediation analyses: a review and tutorial, Epidemiol Health, 39, 10.4178/epih.e2017035 · DOI
- Lee, 2019, Mediation analysis, JAMA, 321, 697, 10.1001/jama.2018.21973 · DOI
- VanderWeele T . Explanation in causal inference. Oxford University Press, 2015.
- Keele, 2015, Identifying mechanisms behind policy interventions via causal mediation analysis, J Policy Anal Manag, 34, 937, 10.1002/pam.21853 · DOI
- Lee, 2017, Advancing physical therapist interventions by investigating causal mechanisms, Phys Ther, 97, 1119, 10.1093/ptj/pzx095 · DOI
- Nguyen TQ , Schmid I , Stuart EA . Clarifying causal mediation analysis for the applied researcher: defining effects based on what we want to learn, 2019. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1904.08515 · arXiv
- Liu, 2016, Implementation and reporting of causal mediation analysis in 2015: a systematic review in epidemiological studies, BMC Res Notes, 9, 10.1186/s13104-016-2163-7 · DOI
- 10.3200/GENP.136.2.153-178 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.berh.2013.10.001 · DOI
- Hertzog, 2018, Trends in mediation analysis in nursing research: improving current practice, West J Nurs Res, 40, 907, 10.1177/0193945916687782 · DOI
- 10.1177/1094428106297811 · DOI
- 10.1186/s12874-018-0578-7 · DOI
- Vo, 2020, The conduct and reporting of mediation analysis in recently published randomized controlled trials: results from a methodological systematic review, J Clin Epidemiol, 117, 78, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.10.001 · DOI
- 10.1186/1741-7015-8-18 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1136/bmj.39335.541782.AD · DOI · Paper page
- Cashin AG , McAuley JH , Lamb SE , et al . Development of a guideline for reporting mediation analyses (AGReMA). BMC Med Res Methodol 2020;20.doi:10.1186/s12874-020-0915-5 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1136/bmj.311.7001.376 · DOI · Paper page
- Froud, 2020, Opportunities and challenges around adapting supported employment interventions for people with chronic low back pain: modified nominal group technique, Disabil Rehabil, 1
- 10.1016/j.ejpain.2011.04.015 · DOI
- Murphy, 1998, Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical Guideline development, Health Technol Assess, 2, 1, 10.3310/hta2030 · DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.j3453 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1186/1741-7015-8-24 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1186/s13012-015-0235-z · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Mediators of socioeconomic inequalities in preterm birth: a systematic review
McHale, P., Maudsley, G., Pennington, A., Schlüter, D. K., Barr, B., Paranjothy, S., & Taylor-Robinson, D. (2022) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-022-13438-9 · Cited by 89
Metadata
- Authors
- Cashin, A. G., McAuley, J. H., Lamb, S., Hopewell, S., Kamper, S. J., Williams, C. M., Henschke, N., & Lee, H.
- Venue
- BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2020-08-26
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 106-106
- ISSN
- 2515-446X
- 2515-4478
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 7
- Language
- en
- Funders
- The Berkeley Initiative for Transparency in the Social Sciences, a program of the Center for Effective Global Action (CEGA), with support from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation (SSMART Grant)
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Items for consideration in a reporting guideline for mediation analyses: a Delphi study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111406
- The paper
- Cashin, A. G., McAuley, J. H., Lamb, S., Hopewell, S., Kamper, S. J., Williams, C. M., Henschke, N., & Lee, H. (2021). Items for consideration in a reporting guideline for mediation analyses: a Delphi study. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111406
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
