Natural direct and indirect effects on the exposed : effect decomposition under weaker assumptions

We define natural direct and indirect effects on the exposed. We show that these allow for effect decomposition under weaker identification conditions than population natural direct and indirect effects. When no confounders of the mediator-outcome association are affected by the exposure, identification is possible under essentially the same conditions as for controlled direct effects. Otherwise, identification is still possible with additional knowledge on a nonidentifiable selection-bias function which measures the dependence of the mediator effect on the observed exposure within confounder levels, and which evaluates to zero in a large class of realistic data-generating mechanisms. We argue that natural direct and indirect effects on the exposed are of intrinsic interest in various applications. We moreover show that they coincide with the corresponding population natural direct and indirect effects when the exposure is randomly assigned. In such settings, our results are thus also of relevance for assessing population natural direct and indirect effects in the presence of exposure-induced mediator-outcome confounding, which existing methodology has not been able to address

Sharp sensitivity bounds for mediation under unmeasured mediator-outcome confounding

It is often of interest to decompose a total effect of an exposure into the component that acts on the outcome through some mediator and the component that acts independently through other pathways. Said another way, we are interested in the direct and indirect effects of the exposure on the outcome. Even if the exposure is randomly assigned, it is often infeasible to randomize the mediator, leaving the mediator-outcome confounding not fully controlled. We develop a sensitivity analysis technique that can bound the direct and indirect effects without parametric assumptions about the unmeasured mediator-outcome confounding

Sensitivity Analysis for Unmeasured Confounding in Meta-Analyses

Random-effects meta-analyses of observational studies can produce biased estimates if the synthesized studies are subject to unmeasured confounding. We propose sensitivity analyses quantifying the extent to which unmeasured confounding of specified magnitude could reduce to below a certain threshold the proportion of true effect sizes that are scientifically meaningful. We also develop converse methods to estimate the strength of confounding capable of reducing the proportion of scientifically meaningful true effects to below a chosen threshold. These methods apply when a "bias factor" is assumed to be normally distributed across studies or is assessed across a range of fixed values. Our estimators are derived using recently proposed sharp bounds on confounding bias within a single study that do not make assumptions regarding the unmeasured confounders themselves or the functional form of their relationships to the exposure and outcome of interest. We provide an R package, ConfoundedMeta, and a freely available online graphical user interface that compute point estimates and inference and produce plots for conducting such sensitivity analyses. These methods facilitate principled use of random-effects meta-analyses of observational studies to assess the strength of causal evidence for a hypothesis