Use of directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) to identify confounders in applied health research: review and recommendations
Clicks: 22
ID: 307553
2020
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
6.3
/100
22 views
4 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #29 of 133 articles by views in International Journal of Epidemiology
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 133 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Abstract Background Directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) are an increasingly popular approach for identifying confounding variables that require conditioning when estimating causal effects. This review examined the use of DAGs in applied health research to inform recommendations for improving their transparency and utility in future research. Methods Original health research articles published during 1999–2017 mentioning ‘directed acyclic graphs’ (or similar) or citing DAGitty were identified from Scopus, Web of Science, Medline and Embase. Data were extracted on the reporting of: estimands, DAGs and adjustment sets, alongside the characteristics of each article’s largest DAG. Results A total of 234 articles were identified that reported using DAGs. A fifth (n = 48, 21%) reported their target estimand(s) and half (n = 115, 48%) reported the adjustment set(s) implied by their DAG(s). Two-thirds of the articles (n = 144, 62%) made at least one DAG available. DAGs varied in size but averaged 12 nodes [interquartile range (IQR): 9–16, range: 3–28] and 29 arcs (IQR: 19–42, range: 3–99). The median saturation (i.e. percentage of total possible arcs) was 46% (IQR: 31–67, range: 12–100). 37% (n = 53) of the DAGs included unobserved variables, 17% (n = 25) included ‘super-nodes’ (i.e. nodes containing more than one variable) and 34% (n = 49) were visually arranged so that the constituent arcs flowed in the same direction (e.g. top-to-bottom). Conclusion There is substantial variation in the use and reporting of DAGs in applied health research. Although this partly reflects their flexibility, it also highlights some potential areas for improvement. This review hence offers several recommendations to improve the reporting and use of DAGs in future research.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W3114319529
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Peter W. G. Tennant, Eleanor J. Murray, Kellyn F Arnold, Laurie Berrie, Matthew P. Fox, Sarah Gadd, Wendy J. Harrison, Claire Keeble, Lynsie R Ranker, Johannes Textor, Georgia D Tomova, Mark S. Gilthorpe, George T. H. Ellison |
| Journal | International Journal of Epidemiology |
| Year | 2020 |
| DOI |
10.1093/ije/dyaa213
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.