On the causal structure of information bias and confounding bias in randomized trials

Eyal Shahar, Doron J. Shahar

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Randomized trials are undoubtedly different from observational studies, but authors sometimes propose differences between these designs that do not exist. In this article we examine two claims about randomized trials: first, a recent claim that the causal structure of exposure measurement (information) bias in a randomized trial differs from the causal structure of that bias in an observational study. Second, a long-standing claim that confounding bias cannot operate in a randomized trial - if randomization was perfectly implemented. Using causal diagrams (causal directed acyclic graphs), we show that both claims are false in the context of an intention-to-treat analysis. We also describe a previously unrecognized mechanism of information bias, and suggest that the term 'information bias' should replace the terms 'measurement bias' and 'observation bias'.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1214-1216
Number of pages3
JournalJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Volume15
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2009

Fingerprint

Observational Studies
Intention to Treat Analysis
Random Allocation
Observation

Keywords

  • Causal diagrams
  • Confounding
  • Directed acyclic graphs
  • Information bias
  • Measurement bias
  • Randomized trials

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Health Policy

Cite this

On the causal structure of information bias and confounding bias in randomized trials. / Shahar, Eyal; Shahar, Doron J.

In: Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, Vol. 15, No. 6, 12.2009, p. 1214-1216.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{8bdad7af42cf43a8b0acdeea873c48d5,
title = "On the causal structure of information bias and confounding bias in randomized trials",
abstract = "Randomized trials are undoubtedly different from observational studies, but authors sometimes propose differences between these designs that do not exist. In this article we examine two claims about randomized trials: first, a recent claim that the causal structure of exposure measurement (information) bias in a randomized trial differs from the causal structure of that bias in an observational study. Second, a long-standing claim that confounding bias cannot operate in a randomized trial - if randomization was perfectly implemented. Using causal diagrams (causal directed acyclic graphs), we show that both claims are false in the context of an intention-to-treat analysis. We also describe a previously unrecognized mechanism of information bias, and suggest that the term 'information bias' should replace the terms 'measurement bias' and 'observation bias'.",
keywords = "Causal diagrams, Confounding, Directed acyclic graphs, Information bias, Measurement bias, Randomized trials",
author = "Eyal Shahar and Shahar, {Doron J.}",
year = "2009",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1111/j.1365-2753.2009.01347.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "15",
pages = "1214--1216",
journal = "Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice",
issn = "1356-1294",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - On the causal structure of information bias and confounding bias in randomized trials

AU - Shahar, Eyal

AU - Shahar, Doron J.

PY - 2009/12

Y1 - 2009/12

N2 - Randomized trials are undoubtedly different from observational studies, but authors sometimes propose differences between these designs that do not exist. In this article we examine two claims about randomized trials: first, a recent claim that the causal structure of exposure measurement (information) bias in a randomized trial differs from the causal structure of that bias in an observational study. Second, a long-standing claim that confounding bias cannot operate in a randomized trial - if randomization was perfectly implemented. Using causal diagrams (causal directed acyclic graphs), we show that both claims are false in the context of an intention-to-treat analysis. We also describe a previously unrecognized mechanism of information bias, and suggest that the term 'information bias' should replace the terms 'measurement bias' and 'observation bias'.

AB - Randomized trials are undoubtedly different from observational studies, but authors sometimes propose differences between these designs that do not exist. In this article we examine two claims about randomized trials: first, a recent claim that the causal structure of exposure measurement (information) bias in a randomized trial differs from the causal structure of that bias in an observational study. Second, a long-standing claim that confounding bias cannot operate in a randomized trial - if randomization was perfectly implemented. Using causal diagrams (causal directed acyclic graphs), we show that both claims are false in the context of an intention-to-treat analysis. We also describe a previously unrecognized mechanism of information bias, and suggest that the term 'information bias' should replace the terms 'measurement bias' and 'observation bias'.

KW - Causal diagrams

KW - Confounding

KW - Directed acyclic graphs

KW - Information bias

KW - Measurement bias

KW - Randomized trials

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=73549121310&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=73549121310&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2009.01347.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2009.01347.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 20367730

AN - SCOPUS:73549121310

VL - 15

SP - 1214

EP - 1216

JO - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

JF - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

SN - 1356-1294

IS - 6

ER -