↓ Skip to main content

Implementation and reporting of causal mediation analysis in 2015: a systematic review in epidemiological studies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Implementation and reporting of causal mediation analysis in 2015: a systematic review in epidemiological studies
Published in
BMC Research Notes, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13104-016-2163-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shao-Hsien Liu, Christine M. Ulbricht, Stavroula A. Chrysanthopoulou, Kate L. Lapane

Abstract

Causal mediation analysis is often used to understand the impact of variables along the causal pathway of an occurrence relation. How well studies apply and report the elements of causal mediation analysis remains unknown. We systematically reviewed epidemiological studies published in 2015 that employed causal mediation analysis to estimate direct and indirect effects of observed associations between an exposure on an outcome. We identified potential epidemiological studies through conducting a citation search within Web of Science and a keyword search within PubMed. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility. For eligible studies, one reviewer performed data extraction, and a senior epidemiologist confirmed the extracted information. Empirical application and methodological details of the technique were extracted and summarized. Thirteen studies were eligible for data extraction. While the majority of studies reported and identified the effects of measures, most studies lacked sufficient details on the extent to which identifiability assumptions were satisfied. Although most studies addressed issues of unmeasured confounders either from empirical approaches or sensitivity analyses, the majority did not examine the potential bias arising from the measurement error of the mediator. Some studies allowed for exposure-mediator interaction and only a few presented results from models both with and without interactions. Power calculations were scarce. Reporting of causal mediation analysis is varied and suboptimal. Given that the application of causal mediation analysis will likely continue to increase, developing standards of reporting of causal mediation analysis in epidemiological research would be prudent.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 2%
Belgium 1 2%
Unknown 53 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 31%
Student > Master 9 16%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 5 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 22%
Social Sciences 9 16%
Psychology 3 5%
Mathematics 3 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 5%
Other 12 22%
Unknown 13 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 May 2020.
All research outputs
#2,813,891
of 15,089,533 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#476
of 3,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,794
of 265,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,089,533 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,361 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,142 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them