Am J Epidemiol. 2021 Nov 2;190(11):2275-2279. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwab107.
Epidemiologists sometimes use external sources of variation to explore highly confounded exposure-outcome relationships or exposures that cannot be randomized. These exogenous sources of variation, or natural experiments, are sometimes proposed as instrumental variables to examine the effects of given exposures on given outcomes. Previous epidemiologic studies have applied this technique using famines, earthquakes, weather events, and previous pandemics as exogenous sources of variation for other exposures; interest in applying this technique using the current severe acute respiratory system coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic is already documented. Yet large-scale events like these likely have broad and complicated impacts on human health, which almost certainly violates the exclusion restriction assumption of instrumental variable analyses. We review the assumptions of instrumental variable analyses, highlight previous applications of this method with respect to natural experiments with broad impacts or "shocks," and discuss how these relate to our current observations of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. While we encourage thorough investigation of the broad impacts of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on human health, we caution against its widespread use as an instrumental variable to study other exposures of interest.
流行病学家有时会利用外部变异源来探索高度混杂的暴露-结局关系或无法随机化的暴露。这些外部变异源,或自然实验,有时被提议作为工具变量,以研究特定暴露对特定结局的影响。以前的流行病学研究已经将这一技术应用于饥荒、地震、天气事件和以前的大流行,将其作为其他暴露的外部变异源;已经有文献记录了利用当前严重急性呼吸系统综合征冠状病毒 2(SARS-CoV-2)大流行应用这一技术的兴趣。然而,像这样的大规模事件很可能对人类健康产生广泛而复杂的影响,这几乎肯定违反了工具变量分析的排除限制假设。我们回顾了工具变量分析的假设,强调了以前关于具有广泛影响或“冲击”的自然实验的这种方法的应用,并讨论了这些与我们当前对 SARS-CoV-2 大流行的观察有何关系。虽然我们鼓励对 SARS-CoV-2 大流行对人类健康的广泛影响进行彻底调查,但我们警告不要将其广泛用作研究其他相关暴露的工具变量。