A simulation study on matched case-control designs in the perspective of causal diagrams

8Citations
Citations of this article
25Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: In observational studies, matched case-control designs are routinely conducted to improve study precision. How to select covariates for match or adjustment, however, is still a great challenge for estimating causal effect between the exposure E and outcome D. Methods: From the perspective of causal diagrams, 9 scenarios of causal relationships among exposure (E), outcome (D) and their related covariates (C) were investigated. Further various simulation strategies were performed to explore whether match or adjustment should be adopted. The "do calculus" and "back-door criterion" were used to calculate the true causal effect (β) of E on D on the log-odds ratio scale. 1:1 matching method was used to create matched case-control data, and the conditional or unconditional logistic regression was utilized to get the estimators (β\overset{\frown }{\beta } $$) of causal effect. The bias (β β $$ \overset{\frown }{\beta}\hbox{-} \beta $$) and standard error (S E βSE\left(\overset{\frown }{\beta}\right) $$) were used to evaluate their performances. Results: When C is exactly a confounder for E and D, matching on it did not illustrate distinct improvement in the precision; the benefit of match was to greatly reduce the bias for β though failed to completely remove the bias; further adjustment for C in matched case-control designs is still essential. When C is associated with E or D, but not a confounder, including an independent cause of D, a cause of E but has no direct causal effect on D, a collider of E and D, an effect of exposure E, a mediator of causal path from E to D, arbitrary match or adjustment of this kind of plausible confounders C will create unexpected bias. When C is not a confounder but an effect of D, match or adjustment is unnecessary. Specifically, when C is an instrumental variable, match or adjustment could not reduce the bias due to existence of unobserved confounders U. Conclusions: Arbitrary match or adjustment of the plausible confounder C is very dangerous before figuring out the possible causal relationships among E, D and their related covariates.

Figures

  • Fig. 1 Nine simulation scenarios. E, C, D indicate exposure, matching factor, outcome, respectively. Let variable S indicate whether a person is selected for case-control study or not, the square around S indicates the analysis is conditional on individuals having been selected into the matched case-control study. Dashed line C–D show the colliding bias (i.e., selective bias) due to matching on C. S is a collider on C→S←D. Colliding bias will arise if conditioning on colliding node (i.e., S). a) C is a confounder for the exposure E and the outcome D; b) C is a common cause of E and D with an absence of cause effect between them; c) C is an independent cause of D; d) C is a cause of E, but has no direct causal effect on D; e) C is a common effect (i.e. collider) of E and D; f) C is an effect of outcome D; g) C is an effect of exposure E; h) C is a mediator of causal path from E to D; i) C is an instrumental variable for E and D
  • Fig. 2 Bias (upper panels) and standard error (i.e. SE, lower panels) of log transformed odds ratio estimations for different effect sizes of CE and CD. Each line indicated one model. The left panel displayed the bias and standard error on the estimated values of exposure E for different odds ratio (from 1 to 10) of CE respectively. The right panel showed the bias and standard error of estimated values on exposure E for different odds ratio (from 1 to 10) of CD respectively. Note: model 1, unconditional logistic regression model without adjusting for C for non-matched case-control designs; model 2, unconditional logistic regression model with adjusting for C for non-matched case-control designs; model 3, unconditional logistic regression model without adjusting for C for matched case-control designs; model 4, unconditional logistic regression model with adjusting for C for matched case-control designs; model 5, conditional logistic regression model with adjusting for C for matched case-control designs
  • Fig. 3 Bias (upper panels) and standard error (i.e. SE, lower panels) of log transformed odds ratio estimations for different effect sizes of CE and CD. Each line indicated one model. The left panel displayed the bias and standard error of different odds ratio (from 1 to 10) of CE. The right panel showed the bias and standard error of different odds ratio (from 1 to 10) of CD. Note: model 1, unconditional logistic regression model without adjusting for C for non-matched case-control designs; model 2, unconditional logistic regression model with adjusting for C for non-matched case-control designs; model 3, unconditional logistic regression model without adjusting for C for matched case-control designs; model 4, unconditional logistic regression model with adjusting for C for matched case-control designs; model 5, conditional logistic regression model with adjusting for C for matched case-control designs
  • Fig. 4 Bias (left panels) and standard error (i.e. SE, right panels) of log transformed odds ratio estimations for different effect sizes of CD. Each line indicated one model. Note: model 1, unconditional logistic regression model without adjusting for C for non-matched case-control designs; model 2, unconditional logistic regression model with adjusting for C for non-matched case-control designs; model 3, unconditional logistic regression model without adjusting for C for matched case-control designs; model 4, unconditional logistic regression model with adjusting for C for matched case-control designs; model 5, conditional logistic regression model with adjusting for C for matched case-control designs
  • Fig. 5 Bias (left panels) and standard error (i.e. SE, right panels) of log transformed odds ratio estimations for different effect sizes of CE. Each line represented one model. Note: model 1, unconditional logistic regression model without adjusting for C for non-matched case-control designs; model 2, unconditional logistic regression model with adjusting for C for non-matched case-control designs; model 3, unconditional logistic regression model without adjusting for C for matched case-control designs; model 4, unconditional logistic regression model with adjusting for C for matched case-control designs; model 5, conditional logistic regression model with adjusting for C for matched case-control designs
  • Fig. 6 Bias (left panels) and standard error (i.e. SE, right panels) of log transformed odds ratio estimations for different effect sizes of EC and DC. Each line indicated one model. Note: model 1, unconditional logistic regression model without adjusting for C for non-matched case-control designs; model 2, unconditional logistic regression model with adjusting for C for non-matched case-control designs; model 3, unconditional logistic regression model without adjusting for C for matched case-control designs; model 4, unconditional logistic regression model with adjusting for C for matched case-control designs; model 5, conditional logistic regression model with adjusting for C for matched case-control designs
  • Fig. 7 Bias (left panels) and standard error (i.e. SE, right panels) of log transformed odds ratio estimations for different effect sizes of DC. Each line indicated one model. Note: model 1, unconditional logistic regression model without adjusting for C for non-matched case-control designs; model 2, unconditional logistic regression model with adjusting for C for non-matched case-control designs; model 3, unconditional logistic regression model without adjusting for C for matched case-control designs; model 4, unconditional logistic regression model with adjusting for C for matched case-control designs; model 5, conditional logistic regression model with adjusting for C for matched case-control designs
  • Fig. 8 Bias (left panels) and standard error (i.e. SE, right panels) of log transformed odds ratio estimations for different effect sizes of EC. Each line indicated one model. Note: model 1, unconditional logistic regression model without adjusting for C for non-matched case-control designs; model 2, unconditional logistic regression model with adjusting for C for non-matched case-control designs; model 3, unconditional logistic regression model without adjusting for C for matched case-control designs; model 4, unconditional logistic regression model with adjusting for C for matched case-control designs; model 5, conditional logistic regression model with adjusting for C for matched case-control designs

References Powered by Scopus

Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward

3730Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Identification of Causal Effects Using Instrumental Variables

3725Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Causal diagrams for epidemiologic research

3109Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Demographic, socioeconomic, and geographic factors leading to severe malaria and delayed care seeking in Ugandan children: A case–control study

33Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Sensitivity analysis for mistakenly adjusting for mediators in estimating total effect in observational studies

26Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Can statistical adjustment guided by causal inference improve the accuracy of effect estimation? A simulation and empirical research based on meta-analyses of case–control studies

8Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Li, H., Yuan, Z., Su, P., Wang, T., Yu, Y., Sun, X., & Xue, F. (2016). A simulation study on matched case-control designs in the perspective of causal diagrams. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0206-3

Readers over time

‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘2302468

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 5

42%

Researcher 3

25%

Professor / Associate Prof. 2

17%

Lecturer / Post doc 2

17%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Nursing and Health Professions 2

29%

Engineering 2

29%

Arts and Humanities 2

29%

Decision Sciences 1

14%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0