Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, Location VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, PO Box 7057, 1007, MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021 Oct 25;21(1):226. doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01426-3.
Mediation analysis methodology underwent many advancements throughout the years, with the most recent and important advancement being the development of causal mediation analysis based on the counterfactual framework. However, a previous review showed that for experimental studies the uptake of causal mediation analysis remains low. The aim of this paper is to review the methodological characteristics of mediation analyses performed in observational epidemiologic studies published between 2015 and 2019 and to provide recommendations for the application of mediation analysis in future studies.
We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for observational epidemiologic studies published between 2015 and 2019 in which mediation analysis was applied as one of the primary analysis methods. Information was extracted on the characteristics of the mediation model and the applied mediation analysis method.
We included 174 studies, most of which applied traditional mediation analysis methods (n = 123, 70.7%). Causal mediation analysis was not often used to analyze more complicated mediation models, such as multiple mediator models. Most studies adjusted their analyses for measured confounders, but did not perform sensitivity analyses for unmeasured confounders and did not assess the presence of an exposure-mediator interaction.
To ensure a causal interpretation of the effect estimates in the mediation model, we recommend that researchers use causal mediation analysis and assess the plausibility of the causal assumptions. The uptake of causal mediation analysis can be enhanced through tutorial papers that demonstrate the application of causal mediation analysis, and through the development of software packages that facilitate the causal mediation analysis of relatively complicated mediation models.
调解分析方法学多年来取得了许多进展,最近和最重要的进展是基于反事实框架开发因果调解分析。然而,之前的一项综述表明,对于实验研究,因果调解分析的应用仍然很低。本文的目的是回顾 2015 年至 2019 年发表的观察性流行病学研究中进行的调解分析的方法学特征,并为未来研究中调解分析的应用提供建议。
我们在 MEDLINE 和 EMBASE 数据库中搜索了 2015 年至 2019 年发表的观察性流行病学研究,其中调解分析作为主要分析方法之一。提取了调解模型和应用的调解分析方法的特征信息。
我们纳入了 174 项研究,其中大多数应用了传统的调解分析方法(n=123,70.7%)。因果调解分析并未经常用于分析更复杂的调解模型,例如多调解模型。大多数研究对测量混杂因素进行了调整,但未对未测量混杂因素进行敏感性分析,也未评估暴露-调解者相互作用的存在。
为了确保调解模型中效果估计的因果解释,我们建议研究人员使用因果调解分析,并评估因果假设的合理性。通过演示因果调解分析应用的教程文章以及开发便于相对复杂调解模型的因果调解分析的软件包,可以提高因果调解分析的应用。