Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Editorial
. 2018 May;6(10):182.
doi: 10.21037/atm.2018.03.37.

Instrumental variable analysis in the presence of unmeasured confounding

Affiliations
Editorial

Instrumental variable analysis in the presence of unmeasured confounding

Zhongheng Zhang et al. Ann Transl Med. 2018 May.

Abstract

Observational studies are prone to bias due to confounding either measured or unmeasured. While measured confounding can be controlled for with a variety of sophisticated methods such as propensity score-based matching, stratification and multivariable regression model, the unmeasured confounding is usually cumbersome, leading to biased estimates. In econometrics, instrumental variable (IV) is widely used to control for unmeasured confounding. However, its use in clinical researches is generally less employed. In some subspecialties of clinical medicine such as pharmacoepidemiological research, IV analysis is increasingly used in recent years. With the development of electronic healthcare records, more and more healthcare data are available to clinical investigators. Such kind of data are observational in nature, thus estimates based on these data are subject to confounding. This article aims to review several methods for implementing IV analysis for binary and continuous outcomes. R code for these analyses are provided and explained in the main text.

Keywords: Instrumental variable (IV); confounding; probit regression; two-stage least square.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Schematic representation of the relationship between variables. IV, instrumental variable.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The probability of mortality against “percent” obtained with three methods. The result shows that while the two-step probit model is consistent with the true model, the naïve probit model is biased. ASF, average structural function.

References

    1. Grobbee DE, Hoes AW. Clinical Epidemiology: Principles, Methods, And Applications For Clinical Research. 1st edition. Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2008.
    1. Klungel OH, Martens EP, Psaty BM, et al. Methods to assess intended effects of drug treatment in observational studies are reviewed. J Clin Epidemiol 2004;57:1223-31. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.03.011 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Angrist JD, Imbens GW. Identification and Estimation of Local Average Treatment Effects. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1995.
    1. Uddin MJ, Groenwold RH, Ali MS, et al. Methods to control for unmeasured confounding in pharmacoepidemiology: an overview. Int J Clin Pharm 2016;38:714-23. - PubMed
    1. Klungel OH, Jamal Uddin M, de Boer A, et al. Instrumental Variable Analysis in Epidemiologic Studies: An Overview of the Estimation Methods. Pharm Anal Acta 2015;6:353.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources