Skip to main content

Bias in matched case–control studies: DAGs are not enough

European Journal of Epidemiology volume 33, pages 1–4 (2018)Cite this article

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Mansournia MA, Jewell NP, Greenland S. Case–control matching: effects, misconceptions, and recommendations. Eur J Epidemiol. 2018;33:5–15.

  2. Mansournia MA, Hernan MA, Greenland S. Matched designs and causal diagrams. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42(3):860–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Pearce N. Analysis of matched case–control studies. Br Med J. 2016;352:i969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Greenland S, Lash TL. Chapter 19: Bias analysis. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL, editors. Modern epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008. p. 345–80.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hernan MA, Hernandez-Diaz S, Robins JM. A structural approach to selection bias. Epidemiology. 2004;15(5):615–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Aalen OO, Roysland K, Gran JM, Kouyos R, Lange T. Can we believe the DAGs? A comment on the relationship between causal DAGs and mechanisms. Stat Methods Med Res. 2016;25(5):2294–314.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Daniel RM, De Stavola BL, Vansteelandt S. Commentary: The formal approach to quantitative causal inference in epidemiology: misguided or misrepresented? Int J Epidemiol. 2016;45(6):1817–29.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Greenland S. Overthrowing the tyranny of null hypotheses hidden in causal diagrams. In: Dechter R, Geffner H, Halpern JY, editors. Heuristics, probabilities and causality: a tribute to Judea Pearl. New York: College Press; 2010. p. 365–82.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Greenland S. For and against methodologies: some perspectives on recent causal and statistical inference debates. Eur J Epidemiol. 2017;32(1):3–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Greenland S, Mansournia MA. Limitations of individual causal models, causal graphs, and ignorability assumptions, as illustrated by random confounding and design unfaithfulness. Eur J Epidemiol. 2015;30(10):1101–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Krieger N, Smith GD. The tale wagged by the DAG: broadening the scope of causal inference and explanation for epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol. 2016;45(6):1787–808.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Krieger N, Smith GD. Response: FACEing reality—productive tensions between our epidemiological questions, methods and mission. Int J Epidemiol. 2016;45(6):1852–65.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pearce N, Lawlor DA. Causal inference-so much more than statistics. Int J Epidemiol. 2016;45(6):1895–903.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Greenland S. Chapter 16: applications of stratified analysis methods. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL, editors. Modern epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Glymour MM, Greenland S. Chapter 12: causal diagrams. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL, editors. Modern epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Greenland S. Quantifying biases in causal models: classical confounding vs collider-stratification bias. Epidemiology. 2003;14(3):300–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cole SR, Platt RW, Schisterman EF, Chu HT, Westreich D, Richardson D, Poole C. Illustrating bias due to conditioning on a collider. Int J Epidemiol. 2010;39(2):417–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pearce N, Richiardi L. Commentary: three worlds collide—Berkson’s bias, selection bias and collider bias. Int J Epidemiol. 2014;43(2):521–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013)/ERC grant agreement no 668954. I would like to thank Sander Greenland, Deborah Lawlor, Mohammad Mansournia, and David Richardson for their comments on the draft manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Statistics, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK

    Neil Pearce

Authors
  1. Neil Pearce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neil Pearce.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pearce, N. Bias in matched case–control studies: DAGs are not enough. Eur J Epidemiol 33, 1–4 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-018-0362-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-018-0362-3

Keywords

  • Directed Acyclic Graph (DAGs)
  • Matched Case Control Study
  • Collider Bias
  • Backdoor Pathway
  • Matching Factors