Going down the right path: Using causal diagrams and multiple comparison procedures to steer clear of the Table 2 Fallacy and multiplicity
McIntyre, K. J.; Wiener, J. C.; Davies Smith, E.
Show abstract
The Table 2 Fallacy is an interpretation error commonly encountered in medical literature. This fallacy occurs when coefficient estimates in multivariable regression models, apart from that of the primary exposure, are interpreted as total effects on the outcome. Causal diagrams can be used to identify sets of covariates that, when adjusted for, allow for unbiased estimation and correct interpretation of multiple total effects of interest. However, proper investigation of multiple total effects requires fitting several regression models and conducting multiple inferences. As the number of inferences increases, so does the rate of a false positive finding, a phenomenon known as multiplicity. While multiple comparison procedures are recognized as a critical consideration of randomized controlled trials, opinion remains divided on their use within observational studies. This commentary highlights how multiplicity may arise alongside the Table 2 Fallacy, and how causal diagrams can be used in conjunction with multiple comparison procedures to simultaneously avoid this fallacy, control the risk of spurious findings, and further align the best practices of experimental and observational studies.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Quantitative bias analysis for mismeasured variables in health research: a review of software tools 94%
- Quantitative bias analysis in practice: Review of software for regression with unmeasured confounding 92%
- External control arm analysis: an evaluation of propensity score approaches, G-computation, and doubly debiased machine learning 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Negative Control Exposures: Causal effect Identifiability and Use in Probabilistic-Bias and Bayesian Analyses with Unmeasured Confounders 93%
- Detecting heterogeneity of intervention effects using analysis and meta-analysis of differences in variance between arms of a trial 91%
- Assessing Direct and Spillover Effects of Intervention Packages in Network-Randomized Studies 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Quantitative bias analysis methods for summary level epidemiologic data in the peer-reviewed literature: a systematic review 95%
- Estimating and Testing an Index of Bias Attributable to Composite Outcomes in Comparative Studies 92%
- The use of the Registered Reports format for publication of randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional study 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Mendelian randomization, lipids and coronary artery disease: trade-offs between study designs and assumptions 92%
- Analyses using multiple imputation need to consider missing data in auxiliary variables 91%
- Potential Biases in Test-Negative Design Studies of COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness Arising from the Inclusion of Asymptomatic Individuals 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Bias amplification of unobserved confounding in pharmacoepidemiological studies using indication-based sampling: there is no free lunch in restricting the sample to those with a particular drug-indication 92%
- Causal Forests versus Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting to adjust for Cluster-Level Confounding: A Parametric and Plasmode Simulation Study based on US Hosptial Electronic Health Record Data 91%
- Pregnancy pharmacoepidemiology: How often are key methodological elements reported in publications? 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.