Are All Biases Missing Data Problems?

Estimating causal effects is a frequent goal of epidemiologic studies. Traditionally, there have been three established systematic threats to consistent estimation of causal effects. These three threats are bias due to confounders, selection, and measurement error. Confounding, selection, and measur...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Current epidemiology reports 2015-09, Vol.2 (3), p.162-171
Hauptverfasser: Howe, Chanelle J., Cain, Lauren E., Hogan, Joseph W.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Estimating causal effects is a frequent goal of epidemiologic studies. Traditionally, there have been three established systematic threats to consistent estimation of causal effects. These three threats are bias due to confounders, selection, and measurement error. Confounding, selection, and measurement bias have typically been characterized as distinct types of biases. However, each of these biases can also be characterized as missing data problems that can be addressed with missing data solutions. Here we describe how the aforementioned systematic threats arise from missing data as well as review methods and their related assumptions for reducing each bias type. We also link the assumptions made by the reviewed methods to the missing completely at random (MCAR) and missing at random (MAR) assumptions made in the missing data framework that allow for valid inferences to be made based on the observed, incomplete data.
ISSN:2196-2995
2196-2995
DOI:10.1007/s40471-015-0050-8