This site needs JavaScript to work properly. Please enable it to take advantage of the complete set of features!
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

Save citation to file

Add to Collections

Name must be less than 100 characters
Unable to load your collection due to an error
Please try again

Add to My Bibliography

Unable to load your delegates due to an error
Please try again

Your saved search

Would you like email updates of new search results?
Saved Search Alert Radio Buttons
()

Create a file for external citation management software

Your RSS Feed

. 2020 Dec;7(4):190-202.
doi: 10.1007/s40471-020-00243-4. Epub 2020 Oct 15.

A Selective Review of Negative Control Methods in Epidemiology

Affiliations

Affiliations

  • 1 Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
  • 2 Department of Probability and Statistics, Peking University, Beijing, China.
  • 3 Statistics Department, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.

A Selective Review of Negative Control Methods in Epidemiology

Xu Shi et al. Curr Epidemiol Rep. 2020 Dec.
. 2020 Dec;7(4):190-202.
doi: 10.1007/s40471-020-00243-4. Epub 2020 Oct 15.

Affiliations

  • 1 Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
  • 2 Department of Probability and Statistics, Peking University, Beijing, China.
  • 3 Statistics Department, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.

Abstract

Purpose of review: Negative controls are a powerful tool to detect and adjust for bias in epidemiological research. This paper introduces negative controls to a broader audience and provides guidance on principled design and causal analysis based on a formal negative control framework.

Recent findings: We review and summarize causal and statistical assumptions, practical strategies, and validation criteria that can be combined with subject-matter knowledge to perform negative control analyses. We also review existing statistical methodologies for the detection, reduction, and correction of confounding bias, and briefly discuss recent advances towards nonparametric identification of causal effects in a double-negative control design.

Summary: There is great potential for valid and accurate causal inference leveraging contemporary healthcare data in which negative controls are routinely available. Design and analysis of observational data leveraging negative controls is an area of growing interest in health and social sciences. Despite these developments, further effort is needed to disseminate these novel methods to ensure they are adopted by practicing epidemiologists.

Keywords: Bias correction; Bias detection; Bias reduction; Negative control; Unmeasured confounding.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Compliance with Ethical Standards Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Human and Animal Rights This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Figures

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

An example of different types…

Fig. 1

An example of different types of negative controls: consider studying the causal effect…

Fig. 1
An example of different types of negative controls: consider studying the causal effect of flu shot (A) on influenza hospitalization (Y), subject to confounding by unmeasured health-seeking behavior (U). Annual wellness visit history (Z) is an NCE which does not causally affect Y. Injury/trauma hospitalization (W) is an NCO which is not causally affected by A. Both Z and W are proxies of health-seeking behavior. Physician’s prescribing preference (IV) is an instrumental variable which likely induces variation in the choice of treatment and may not affect the outcome other than through its influence on the treatment. As discussed in “Definition and Notation” and “Bias detection” sections, both a valid instrumental variable and an invalid instrumental variable associated with U are valid NCE. All arguments are made implicitly conditional on measured covariates X. Independence between A and Z (or Y and W) conditional on U is not necessary. See more examples in Table 3 of the Appendix.

References

    1. Ioannidis John PA. “Why most published research findings are false”. In: PLOS Medicine 2.8 (2005), pp. 696–701. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hernán MA, Robins JM. Using big data to emulate a target trial when a randomized trial is not available. In: Am J Epidemiol. 2016;183(8):758–64. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lipsitch M, Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ, Cohen T. Negative controls: a tool for detecting confounding and bias in observational studies. In: Epidemiology. 2010;21.3:383–8

      •• This paper is the first to formally define negative control exposure and outcome with conditions for bias detection as well as examples in epidemiology.

    1. Arnold BF, Ercumen A, Benjamin-Chung J, Colford JM Jr. Brief report: negative controls to detect selection bias and measurement bias in epidemiologic studies. In: Epidemiology. 2016;27.5:637. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Arnold B, Ercumen A. Negative control outcomes: a tool to detect bias in randomized trials. In: J Am Med Assoc. 2016;316(24): 2597–8. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources

Cite
Morty Proxy This is a proxified and sanitized view of the page, visit original site.