CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,985Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Mediation Analysis: A Practitioner's Guide

VanderWeele, Tyler J.·2016·Annual Review of Public Health
DOI 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032315-021402
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article provides an overview of recent developments in mediation analysis, that is, analyses used to assess the relative magnitude of different pathways and mechanisms by which an exposure may affect an outcome. Traditional approaches to mediation in the biomedical and social sciences are described. Attention is given to the confounding assumptions required for a causal interpretation of direct and indirect effect estimates. Methods from the causal inference literature to conduct mediation in the presence of exposure-mediator interactions, binary outcomes, binary mediators, and case-control study designs are presented. Sensitivity analysis techniques for unmeasured confounding and measurement error are introduced. Discussion is given to extensions to time-to-event outcomes and multiple mediators. Further flexible modeling strategies arising from the precise counterfactual definitions of direct and indirect effects are also described. The focus throughout is on methodology that is easily implementable in practice across a broad range of potential applications.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032315-021402

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 58 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Hong G, 2012, J. Res. Educ. Eff. (Spec. Issue: Stat. Approaches Stud. Mediat. Eff. Educ. Res., 5, 261
  2. 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000204 · DOI
  3. Pearl J, 2001, Proc. Conf. Uncertain. Artif. Intel., 17th, Seattle, 411
  4. 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31821c680c · DOI
  5. VanderWeele TJ, 2014, Epidemiol. Methods, 3, 33
  6. VanderWeele TJ, 2013, Epidemiol. Methods, 2, 95

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 1,001–1,001 of 1,001

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
VanderWeele, T. J.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
VanderWeele, Tyler J.
ORCID
VanderWeele, Tyler J.
Venue
Annual Review of Public Health
Publisher
Annual Reviews
Published
2016-03-18
Volume
37
Issue
1
Pages
17-32
ISSN
  • 0163-7525 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-2093
DOI
10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032315-021402
OpenAlex
W2193561325
Cited by
1,985
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 298 · 2025: 340 · 2024: 338 · 2023: 260 · 2022: 226 · 2021: 195 · 2020: 136 · 2019: 103 · 2018: 54 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 11
FWCI
4.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annual Review of Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (ES017876)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Keywords
mediation analysis, direct and indirect effects, causal inference, binary outcomes, case-control study, sensitivity analysis, unmeasured confounding, measurement error, time-to-event outcomes, multiple mediators, flexible modeling
MeSH terms
Time Factors, Epidemiologic Research Design, Bias, Causality, Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic, Logistic Models

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