Statistical Methods in Medical Research

Mendelian randomisation analyses use genetic variants as instrumental variables (IVs) to estimate causal effects of modifiable risk factors on disease outcomes. Genetic variants typically explain a small proportion of the variability in risk factors; hence Mendelian randomisation analyses can require large sample sizes. However, an increasing number of genetic variants have been found to be robustly associated with disease-related outcomes in genome-wide association studies. Use of multiple instruments can improve the precision of IV estimates, and also permit examination of underlying IV assumptions. We discuss the use of multiple genetic variants in Mendelian randomisation analyses with continuous outcome variables where all relationships are assumed to be linear. We describe possible violations of IV assumptions, and how multiple instrument analyses can be used to identify them. We present an example using four adiposity-associated genetic variants as IVs for the causal effect of fat mass on bone density, using data on 5509 children enrolled in the ALSPAC birth cohort study. We also use simulation studies to examine the effect of different sets of IVs on precision and bias. When each instrument independently explains variability in the risk factor, use of multiple instruments increases the precision of IV estimates. However, inclusion of weak instruments could increase finite sample bias. Missing data on multiple genetic variants can diminish the available sample size, compared with single instrument analyses. In simulations with additive genotype-risk factor effects, IV estimates using a weighted allele score had similar properties to estimates using multiple instruments. Under the correct conditions, multiple instrument analyses are a promising approach for Mendelian randomisation studies. Further research is required into multiple imputation methods to address missing data issues in IV estimation.

Estimating causal effects from incomplete data requires additional and inherently untestable assumptions regarding the mechanism giving rise to the missing data. We show that using causal diagrams to represent these additional assumptions both complements and clarifies some of the central issues in missing data theory, such as Rubin's classification of missingness mechanisms (as missing completely at random (MCAR), missing at random (MAR) or missing not at random (MNAR)) and the circumstances in which causal effects can be estimated without bias by analysing only the subjects with complete data. In doing so, we formally extend the back-door criterion of Pearl and others for use in incomplete data examples. These ideas are illustrated with an example drawn from an occupational cohort study of the effect of cosmic radiation on skin cancer incidence.

Competing risks data arise naturally in medical research, when subjects under study are at risk of more than one mutually exclusive event such as death from different causes. The competing risks framework also includes settings where different possible events are not mutually exclusive but the interest lies on the first occurring event. For example, in HIV studies where seropositive subjects are receiving highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), treatment interruption and switching to a new HAART regimen act as competing risks for the first major change in HAART. This article introduces competing risks data and critically reviews the widely used statistical methods for estimation and modelling of the basic (estimable) quantities of interest. We discuss the increasingly popular Fine and Gray model for subdistribution hazard of interest, which can be readily fitted using standard software under the assumption of administrative censoring. We present a simulation study, which explores the robustness of inference for the subdistribution hazard to the assumption of administrative censoring. This shows a range of scenarios within which the strictly incorrect assumption of administrative censoring has a relatively small effect on parameter estimates and confidence interval coverage. The methods are illustrated using data from HIV-1 seropositive patients from the collaborative multicentre study CASCADE (Concerted Action on SeroConversion to AIDS and Death in Europe).

Estimation of the effect of a binary exposure on an outcome in the presence of confounding is often carried out via outcome regression modelling. An alternative approach is to use propensity score methodology. The propensity score is the conditional probability of receiving the exposure given the observed covariates and can be used, under the assumption of no unmeasured confounders, to estimate the causal effect of the exposure. In this article, we provide a non-technical and intuitive discussion of propensity score methodology, motivating the use of the propensity score approach by analogy with randomised studies, and describe the four main ways in which this methodology can be implemented. We carefully describe the population parameters being estimated — an issue that is frequently overlooked in the medical literature. We illustrate these four methods using data from a study investigating the association between maternal choice to provide breast milk and the infant's subsequent neurodevelopment. We outline useful extensions of propensity score methodology and discuss directions for future research. Propensity score methods remain controversial and there is no consensus as to when, if ever, they should be used in place of traditional outcome regression models. We therefore end with a discussion of the relative advantages and disadvantages of each.