View Item 

Show simple item record

On a preference‐based instrumental variable approach in reducing unmeasured confounding‐by‐indication

dc.contributor.authorLi, Yunen_US
dc.contributor.authorLee, Yoonseoken_US
dc.contributor.authorWolfe, Robert A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorMorgenstern, Halen_US
dc.contributor.authorZhang, Jinyaoen_US
dc.contributor.authorPort, Friedrich K.en_US
dc.contributor.authorRobinson, Bruce M.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2015-04-02T15:12:41Z
dc.date.available2016-05-10T20:26:28Zen
dc.date.issued2015-03-30en_US
dc.identifier.citationLi, Yun; Lee, Yoonseok; Wolfe, Robert A.; Morgenstern, Hal; Zhang, Jinyao; Port, Friedrich K.; Robinson, Bruce M. (2015). "On a preference‐based instrumental variable approach in reducing unmeasured confounding‐by‐indication." Statistics in Medicine 34(7): 1150-1168.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0277-6715en_US
dc.identifier.issn1097-0258en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/110880
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.en_US
dc.publisherPrinceton University Pressen_US
dc.subject.otherbias formulaen_US
dc.subject.otherunmeasured confoundersen_US
dc.subject.otherobservational studyen_US
dc.subject.otherinstrumental variablesen_US
dc.subject.othercausal inferenceen_US
dc.titleOn a preference‐based instrumental variable approach in reducing unmeasured confounding‐by‐indicationen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelMedicine (General)en_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPublic Healthen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelStatistics and Numeric Dataen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelScienceen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelSocial Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/110880/1/sim6404.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/sim.6404en_US
dc.identifier.sourceStatistics in Medicineen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLee Y, Okui R. Hahn‐Hausman Test as a Specification Test. Journal of Econometrics 2012; 167: 133 – 139.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTan Z. Regression and weighting methods for causal inference using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2006; 101: 1607 – 1618.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceO‘Malley A, Frank R, Normand S. Estimating cost‐offsets of new medications: use of new antipsychotics and mental health costs for schizophrenia. Statistics in Medicine 2011; 30: 1971 – 1988.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOkui R, Small D, Tan Z, Robins J. Doubly robust instrumental variables regression. Statistica Sinica 2012; 22: 173 – 205.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNeuhaus JM. Assessing change with longitudinal and clustered binary data. Annual Review Public Health 2001; 22: 115 – 128.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNeuhaus JM, Kalbfleisch JD. Between‐ and within‐cluster covariate effects in the analysis of clustered data. Biometrics 1998; 54: 638 – 645.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrookhart MA, Wang PS, Solomon DH, Schneeweiss S. Evaluating short‐term drug effects using a physician‐specific prescribing preference as an instrumental variable. Epidemiology 2006; 17 ( 3 ): 268 – 275.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceImbens G, Angrist J. Identification and estimation of local average treatment effects. Econometrica 1994; 62 ( 2 ): 467 – 475.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBalke A, Pearl J. Bounds on treatment effects from studies with imperfect compliance. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1997; 92: 1171 – 1176.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWhite H. Instrumental variables regression with independent observations. Econometrica 1982; 50: 483 – 499.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWooldridge JM. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. MIT press, 2002; 260 – 262.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBound J, Jaeger DA, Baker RM. Problems with instrumental variables estimation when the correlation between the instruments and the endogeneous explanatory variable is weak. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1995; 90 ( 430 ): 443 – 450.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStock J, Wright J, Yogo M. A survey of weak instruments and weak identification in generalized method of moments. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2002; 20 ( 4 ): 518 – 529.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStaiger D, Stock J. Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica 1997; 65 ( 3 ): 557 – 586.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEschbach JW, Egrie JC, Downing MR, Browne JK, Adamson JW. Correction of the anemia of end‐stage renal disease with recombinant human erythropoietin. Results of a combined phase I and II clinical trial. New England Journal of Medicine 1987; 316 ( 2 ): 73 – 78.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMadore F, Lowrie EG, Brugnara C, Lew NL, Lazarus JM, Bridges K, Owen WF. Anemia in hemodialysis patients: variables affecting this outcome predictor. Journal of American Society of Nephrololgy 1997; 8 ( 12 ): 1921 – 1929.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSargan JD. The estimation of economic relationships using instrumental variables. Econometrica 1958; 26 ( 3 ): 393 – 415.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDurbin J. Errors in variables. Review of the International Statistical Institute 1954; 22: 23 – 32.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWu DM. Alternative tests of independence between stochastic regressors and disturbances. Econometrica 1973; 41 ( 4 ): 733 – 750.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHausman J. Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica 1978; 46 ( 3 ): 1251 – 1271.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGlymour MM, Tchetgen EJ, Robins JM. Credible Mendelian randomization studies: approaches for evaluating the instrumental variable assumptions. American Journal of Epidemiology 2012; 175 ( 4 ): 332 – 339.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLee Y. Bias in dynamic panel models under time series misspecification. Journal of Econometrics 2012; 169: 54 – 60.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLee Y. Nonparametric estimation of dynamic panel models with fixed effects econometric theory 2014; 30: 1315 – 1347.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLee Y, Phillips PCB. Model selection in the presence of incidental parameters. Journal of Econometrics. In press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLin DY, Psaty BM, Kronmal RA. Assessing the sensitivity of regression results to unmeasured confounders in observational studies. Biometrics 1998; 54: 948 – 963.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSmall D. Sensitivity analysis for instrumental variables regression with overidentifying restrictions. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2007; 102: 1049 – 1058.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChamberlain G, Imbens G. Random effects estimators with many instrumental variables. Econometrica 2004; 72 ( 1 ): 295 – 306.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBekker PA. Alternative approximations to the distributions of instrumental variable estimators. Econometrica 1994; 62 ( 3 ): 657 – 681.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNewman TB, Vittinghoff E, McCulloch CE. Efficacy of phototherapy for newborns with hyperbilirubinemia: a cautionary example of an instrumental variable analysis. Medical Decision Making 2012; 32 ( 1 ): 83 – 92.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBosco JL, Silliman RA, Thwin SS, Geiger AM, Buist DS, Prout MN, Yood MU, Haque R, Wei F, Lash TL. A most stubborn bias: no adjustment method fully resolves confounding by indication in observational studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2010; 63 ( 1 ): 64 – 74.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSalas M, Hofman A, Stricker BH. Confounding by indication: an example of variation in the use of epidemiologic terminology. American Journal of Epidemiology 1999; 149 ( 11 ): 981 – 983.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceD'Agostino RBJr. Tutorial in biostatistics: propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non‐randomized control group. Statistics in Medicine 1998; 17: 2265 – 2281.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBaiocchi M, Cheng J, Small DS. Instrumental variable methods for causal inference. Statistics in Medicine 2014; 33: 2297 – 2340.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrookhart M, Schneeweiss S. Preference‐based instrumental variable methods for the estimation of treatment effects: assessing validity and interpreting results. The International Journal of Biostatistics 2007; 3 ( 1 ): 14.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSmall D, Rosenbaum PR. War and wages: the strength of instrumental variables and their sensitivity to unobserved biases. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2008; 103: 924 – 933.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHolland PW. Causal inference, path analysis, and recursive structural equations models. Sociological Methodology 1988; 18: 449 – 484.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWest SG, Duan N, Pequegnat W, Gaist P, Des Jarlais DC, Holtgrave D, Szapocznik J, Fishbein M, Rapkin B, Clatts M, Mullen PD. Alternatives to the randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Public Health 2008; 98 ( 8 ): 1359 – 1366.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAngrist J, Imbens G, Rubin D. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1996; 91: 444 – 469.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHeckman JT. Randomization as an instrumental variable. The Review of Economics and Statistics 1996; 78: 336 – 341.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGreenland S. An introduction to instrumental variables for epidemiologists. International Journal of Epidemiology 2000; 29 ( 4 ): 722 – 729.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBaiocchi M, Small DS, Yang L, Polsky D, Groeneveld PW. Near/far matching: a study design approach to instrumental variables. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology 2012; 12: 237 – 253.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJohnston SC, Henneman T, McCulloch CE, van der Laan M. Modeling treatment effects on binary outcomes with grouped‐treatment variables and individual covariates. American Journal of Epidemiology 2002; 156 ( 8 ): 753 – 760.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrookhart MA, Schneeweiss S, Avorn J, Bradbury BD, Liu J, Winkelmayer WC. Comparative mortality risk of anemia management practices in incident hemodialysis patients. The Journal of American Medical Association 2010; 303 ( 9 ): 857 – 864.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKorn ED, Baumrind S. Clinician preferences and the estimation of causal treatment differences. Statistical Science 1998; 13 ( 3 ): 209 – 235.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChen Y, Briesacher BA. Use of instrumental variable in prescription drug research with observational data: a systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2011; 64 ( 6 ): 687 – 700.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDavies NM, Smith GD, Windmeijer F, Martina RM. Issues in the reporting and conduct of instrumental variable studies: a systematic review. Epidemiology 2013; 24: 363 – 369.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBurgess S, Thompson SG, CRP CHD Genetics Collaboration. Avoiding bias from weak instruments in Mendelian randomization studies. International Journal of Epidemiololgy 2011; 40 ( 3 ): 755 – 764.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAngrist JD, Pischke JS. Mostly harmless econometrics: an empiricist's companion. Princeton University Press, 2008.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLittle R, Yau L. Statistical techniques for analyzing data from prevention trials: treatment of no‐shows using rubins causal model. Psychological Methods 1998; 3: 147 – 159.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHirano K, Imbens G, Rubin D, Zhou X. Assessing the effect of an influenza vaccine in an encouragement design. Biostatistics 2000; 1 ( 1 ): 69 – 88.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAngrist J, Imbens G. Two‐stage least squares estimation of average causal effects in models with variable treatment intensity. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1995; 90: 430 – 442.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAbadie A. Semiparametric instrumental variable estimation of treatment response models. Journal of Econometrics 2003; 113: 231 – 263.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
sim6404.pdf
Size:
725.6KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.