Medical Research Council Centre for Causal Analyses and Translational Epidemiology, School of Social and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Bristol, Barley House, Oakfield Grove, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Epidemiology. 2013 May;24(3):363-9. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31828abafb.
Instrumental variables can be used to estimate the causal effects of exposures on outcomes in the presence of residual or uncontrolled confounding. To assess the validity of analyses using instrumental variables, specific information about whether underlying assumptions are met must be presented, in particular to demonstrate that the instrument is associated with the exposure but not with measured confounding factors. We systematically reviewed the epidemiological literature in Embase and Medline for articles containing the term "instrumental variable$" to investigate whether reporting of test statistics in studies using instrumental variables was sufficient to assess the validity of the results. We extracted the information each study reported about their instrumental variables, including specification tests used to check assumptions. The search found 756 studies of which 90 were relevant and were included. Only 25 (28%) studies reported appropriate tests of the strength of the associations between instruments and exposure. Forty-four (49%) studies reported associations between the instrumental variables and observed covariates. Studies using instrumental variables had wide confidence intervals and so effect estimates were imprecise. We propose a checklist of information and specification tests that studies using instrumental variables should report.
在存在残余或未控制混杂的情况下,工具变量可用于估计暴露对结局的因果效应。为了评估使用工具变量进行分析的有效性,必须提供有关是否满足基本假设的具体信息,特别是要证明该工具与暴露相关,但与测量的混杂因素无关。我们在 Embase 和 Medline 中系统地检索了含有“工具变量”一词的文献,以调查使用工具变量的研究中报告检验统计量是否足以评估结果的有效性。我们提取了每项研究报告的关于其工具变量的信息,包括用于检查假设的特定检验。搜索共发现 756 项研究,其中 90 项相关并被纳入。仅有 25 项(28%)研究报告了工具与暴露之间关联强度的适当检验。44 项(49%)研究报告了工具变量与观察到的协变量之间的关联。使用工具变量的研究置信区间较宽,因此效应估计不精确。我们提出了一份使用工具变量的研究应报告的信息和特定检验清单。