Invited Commentary: Dealing With the Inevitable Deficiencies of Bias Analysis—and All Analyses
Author(s) -
Sander Greenland
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
american journal of epidemiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.33
H-Index - 256
eISSN - 1476-6256
pISSN - 0002-9262
DOI - 10.1093/aje/kwab069
Subject(s) - identification (biology) , point (geometry) , information bias , population , econometrics , causality (physics) , interval (graph theory) , point estimation , statistics , computer science , medicine , mathematics , selection bias , environmental health , botany , geometry , physics , quantum mechanics , combinatorics , biology
Lash et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2021;000(00):000–000) have presented detailed critiques of 3 bias analyses that they identify as “suboptimal.” This identification raises the question of what “optimal” means for bias analysis, because it is practically impossible to do statistically optimal analyses of typical population studies—with or without bias analysis. At best the analysis can only attempt to satisfy practice guidelines and account for available information both within and outside the study. One should not expect a full accounting for all sources of uncertainty; hence, interval estimates and distributions for causal effects should never be treated as valid uncertainty assessments—they are instead only example analyses that follow from collections of often questionable assumptions. These observations reinforce those of Lash et al. and point to the need for more development of methods for judging bias-parameter distributions and utilization of available information.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom