Using Transportability to Understand Differences in Mediation Mechanisms Across Trial Sites of a Housing Voucher Experiment

Gaps in the usage and reporting of multiple imputation for incomplete data: findings from a scoping review of observational studies addressing causal questions

BACKGROUND

Missing data are common in observational studies and often occur in several of the variables required when estimating a causal effect, i.e. the exposure, outcome and/or variables used to control for confounding. Analyses involving multiple incomplete variables are not as straightforward as analyses with a single incomplete variable. For example, in the context of multivariable missingness, the standard missing data assumptions ("missing completely at random", "missing at random" [MAR], "missing not at random") are difficult to interpret and assess. It is not clear how the complexities that arise due to multivariable missingness are being addressed in practice. The aim of this study was to review how missing data are managed and reported in observational studies that use multiple imputation (MI) for causal effect estimation, with a particular focus on missing data summaries, missing data assumptions, primary and sensitivity analyses, and MI implementation.

METHODS

We searched five top general epidemiology journals for observational studies that aimed to answer a causal research question and used MI, published between January 2019 and December 2021. Article screening and data extraction were performed systematically.

RESULTS

Of the 130 studies included in this review, 108 (83%) derived an analysis sample by excluding individuals with missing data in specific variables (e.g., outcome) and 114 (88%) had multivariable missingness within the analysis sample. Forty-four (34%) studies provided a statement about missing data assumptions, 35 of which stated the MAR assumption, but only 11/44 (25%) studies provided a justification for these assumptions. The number of imputations, MI method and MI software were generally well-reported (71%, 75% and 88% of studies, respectively), while aspects of the imputation model specification were not clear for more than half of the studies. A secondary analysis that used a different approach to handle the missing data was conducted in 69/130 (53%) studies. Of these 69 studies, 68 (99%) lacked a clear justification for the secondary analysis.

CONCLUSION

Effort is needed to clarify the rationale for and improve the reporting of MI for estimation of causal effects from observational data. We encourage greater transparency in making and reporting analytical decisions related to missing data.

Visualizing External Validity: Graphical Displays to Inform the Extension of Treatment Effects from Trials to Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND

In the presence of effect measure modification, estimates of treatment effects from randomized controlled trials may not be valid in clinical practice settings. The development and application of quantitative approaches for extending treatment effects from trials to clinical practice settings is an active area of research.

METHODS

In this article, we provide researchers with a practical roadmap and four visualizations to assist in variable selection for models to extend treatment effects observed in trials to clinical practice settings and to assess model specification and performance. We apply this roadmap and visualizations to an example extending the effects of adjuvant chemotherapy (5-fluorouracil vs. plus oxaliplatin) for colon cancer from a trial population to a population of individuals treated in community oncology practices in the United States.

RESULTS

The first visualization screens for potential effect measure modifiers to include in models extending trial treatment effects to clinical practice populations. The second visualization displays a measure of covariate overlap between the clinical practice populations and the trial population. The third and fourth visualizations highlight considerations for model specification and influential observations. The conceptual roadmap describes how the output from the visualizations helps interrogate the assumptions required to extend treatment effects from trials to target populations.

CONCLUSIONS

The roadmap and visualizations can inform practical decisions required for quantitatively extending treatment effects from trials to clinical practice settings.

"We adjusted for race": now what? A systematic review of utilization and reporting of race in American Journal of Epidemiology and Epidemiology, 2020-2021

Race is a social construct, commonly used in epidemiologic research to adjust for confounding. However, adjustment of race may mask racial disparities, thereby perpetuating structural racism. We conducted a systematic review of articles published in Epidemiology and American Journal of Epidemiology between 2020 and 2021 to (1) understand how race, ethnicity, and similar social constructs were operationalized, used, and reported; and (2) characterize good and poor practices of utilization and reporting of race data on the basis of the extent to which they reveal or mask systemic racism. Original research articles were considered for full review and data extraction if race data were used in the study analysis. We extracted how race was categorized, used-as a descriptor, confounder, or for effect measure modification (EMM)-and reported if the authors discussed racial disparities and systemic bias-related mechanisms responsible for perpetuating the disparities. Of the 561 articles, 299 had race data available and 192 (34.2%) used race data in analyses. Among the 160 US-based studies, 81 different racial categorizations were used. Race was most often used as a confounder (52%), followed by effect measure modifier (33%), and descriptive variable (12%). Fewer than 1 in 4 articles (22.9%) exhibited good practices (EMM along with discussing disparities and mechanisms), 63.5% of the articles exhibited poor practices (confounding only or not discussing mechanisms), and 13.5% were considered neither poor nor good practices. We discuss implications and provide 13 recommendations for operationalization, utilization, and reporting of race in epidemiologic and public health research.

Efficiently transporting causal direct and indirect effects to new populations under intermediate confounding and with multiple mediators

The same intervention can produce different effects in different sites. Existing transport mediation estimators can estimate the extent to which such differences can be explained by differences in compositional factors and the mechanisms by which mediating or intermediate variables are produced; however, they are limited to consider a single, binary mediator. We propose novel nonparametric estimators of transported interventional (in)direct effects that consider multiple, high-dimensional mediators and a single, binary intermediate variable. They are multiply robust, efficient, asymptotically normal, and can incorporate data-adaptive estimation of nuisance parameters. They can be applied to understand differences in treatment effects across sites and/or to predict treatment effects in a target site based on outcome data in source sites.