Two-stage instrumental variable methods for estimating the causal odds ratio: analysis of bias
- PMID: 21495062
- DOI: 10.1002/sim.4241
Two-stage instrumental variable methods for estimating the causal odds ratio: analysis of bias
Abstract
We present closed-form expressions of asymptotic bias for the causal odds ratio from two estimation approaches of instrumental variable logistic regression: (i) the two-stage predictor substitution (2SPS) method and (ii) the two-stage residual inclusion (2SRI) approach. Under the 2SPS approach, the first stage model yields the predicted value of treatment as a function of an instrument and covariates, and in the second stage model for the outcome, this predicted value replaces the observed value of treatment as a covariate. Under the 2SRI approach, the first stage is the same, but the residual term of the first stage regression is included in the second stage regression, retaining the observed treatment as a covariate. Our bias assessment is for a different context from that of Terza (J. Health Econ. 2008; 27(3):531-543), who focused on the causal odds ratio conditional on the unmeasured confounder, whereas we focus on the causal odds ratio among compliers under the principal stratification framework. Our closed-form bias results show that the 2SPS logistic regression generates asymptotically biased estimates of this causal odds ratio when there is no unmeasured confounding and that this bias increases with increasing unmeasured confounding. The 2SRI logistic regression is asymptotically unbiased when there is no unmeasured confounding, but when there is unmeasured confounding, there is bias and it increases with increasing unmeasured confounding. The closed-form bias results provide guidance for using these IV logistic regression methods. Our simulation results are consistent with our closed-form analytic results under different combinations of parameter settings.
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Similar articles
-
Bias in estimating the causal hazard ratio when using two-stage instrumental variable methods.Stat Med. 2015 Jun 30;34(14):2235-65. doi: 10.1002/sim.6470. Epub 2015 Mar 20. Stat Med. 2015. PMID: 25800789 Free PMC article.
-
Simulation study of instrumental variable approaches with an application to a study of the antidiabetic effect of bezafibrate.Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012 May;21 Suppl 2:114-20. doi: 10.1002/pds.3252. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012. PMID: 22552986
-
A general approach to evaluating the bias of 2-stage instrumental variable estimators.Stat Med. 2018 May 30;37(12):1997-2015. doi: 10.1002/sim.7636. Epub 2018 Mar 23. Stat Med. 2018. PMID: 29572890
-
Correction of confounding bias in non-randomized studies by appropriate weighting.Biom J. 2011 Mar;53(2):369-87. doi: 10.1002/bimj.201000154. Epub 2011 Feb 10. Biom J. 2011. PMID: 21308726 Review.
-
Risk factors, confounding, and the illusion of statistical control.Psychosom Med. 2004 Nov-Dec;66(6):868-75. doi: 10.1097/01.psy.0000140008.70959.41. Psychosom Med. 2004. PMID: 15564351 Review.
Cited by
-
Analysis approaches to address treatment nonadherence in pragmatic trials with point-treatment settings: a simulation study.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022 Feb 16;22(1):46. doi: 10.1186/s12874-022-01518-8. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022. PMID: 35172746 Free PMC article.
-
Instrumental variables estimation of exposure effects on a time-to-event endpoint using structural cumulative survival models.Biometrics. 2017 Dec;73(4):1140-1149. doi: 10.1111/biom.12699. Epub 2017 May 10. Biometrics. 2017. PMID: 28493302 Free PMC article.
-
Dealing with confounding in observational studies: A scoping review of methods evaluated in simulation studies with single-point exposure.Stat Med. 2023 Feb 20;42(4):487-516. doi: 10.1002/sim.9628. Epub 2022 Dec 23. Stat Med. 2023. PMID: 36562408 Free PMC article.
-
A review of instrumental variable estimators for Mendelian randomization.Stat Methods Med Res. 2017 Oct;26(5):2333-2355. doi: 10.1177/0962280215597579. Epub 2015 Aug 17. Stat Methods Med Res. 2017. PMID: 26282889 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Multiplicative versus additive modelling of causal effects using instrumental variables for survival outcomes - a comparison.Stat Methods Med Res. 2025 Jan;34(1):3-25. doi: 10.1177/09622802241293765. Epub 2024 Dec 10. Stat Methods Med Res. 2025. PMID: 39659143 Free PMC article.