How to use directed acyclic graphs: guide for clinical researchers

The BMJ Pub Date : 2025-03-21 DOI:10.1136/bmj-2023-078226
Timothy Feeney, Fernando Pires Hartwig, Neil M Davies
{"title":"How to use directed acyclic graphs: guide for clinical researchers","authors":"Timothy Feeney, Fernando Pires Hartwig, Neil M Davies","doi":"10.1136/bmj-2023-078226","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Directed acyclic graphs are commonly used to illustrate and assess the hypothesised causal mechanisms in health and social research. These graphs can illuminate investigators’ assumptions and help clearly describe each possible explanation for associations observed in data given researchers’ assumptions, ranging from causal effects to confounding and selection bias, and thereby help identify variables that can be used to reduce or overcome bias. This article explains how to construct, interpret, and present directed acyclic graphs as part of clinical research studies and how they can help communicate a study’s strengths or limitations. Causal directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) are a type of graph that illustrates an assumed causal structure between variables of interest. These graphs can illustrate assumed links between possible causes (eg, a behaviour or a medical intervention; referred to in this article as exposure) to possible consequences (eg, presence or absence of disease; referred to in this article as outcome).1 While causal graphs have long been used,2 DAGs have a relatively short history in epidemiological research3 but have become widespread as a way to think about the causal structure underlying an exposure-outcome association.45 DAGs can be useful for many purposes, such as helping to identify confounders,67 evaluating potential selection bias,89 and understanding the roles that measurement error1011 and missing data12 might have in effect estimation. Recent papers have highlighted how DAGs can improve epidemiological131415 and clinical studies.16171819 However, they can also aid in understanding descriptive studies (eg, estimating the incidence of disease) and prediction studies (eg, modelling a patient’s risk of disease). These graphs can also help communicate the assumptions necessary to interpret results to collaborators, researchers, reviewers, readers, and editors. Despite their potential utility, wide variation in the use …","PeriodicalId":22388,"journal":{"name":"The BMJ","volume":"61 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The BMJ","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-078226","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Directed acyclic graphs are commonly used to illustrate and assess the hypothesised causal mechanisms in health and social research. These graphs can illuminate investigators’ assumptions and help clearly describe each possible explanation for associations observed in data given researchers’ assumptions, ranging from causal effects to confounding and selection bias, and thereby help identify variables that can be used to reduce or overcome bias. This article explains how to construct, interpret, and present directed acyclic graphs as part of clinical research studies and how they can help communicate a study’s strengths or limitations. Causal directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) are a type of graph that illustrates an assumed causal structure between variables of interest. These graphs can illustrate assumed links between possible causes (eg, a behaviour or a medical intervention; referred to in this article as exposure) to possible consequences (eg, presence or absence of disease; referred to in this article as outcome).1 While causal graphs have long been used,2 DAGs have a relatively short history in epidemiological research3 but have become widespread as a way to think about the causal structure underlying an exposure-outcome association.45 DAGs can be useful for many purposes, such as helping to identify confounders,67 evaluating potential selection bias,89 and understanding the roles that measurement error1011 and missing data12 might have in effect estimation. Recent papers have highlighted how DAGs can improve epidemiological131415 and clinical studies.16171819 However, they can also aid in understanding descriptive studies (eg, estimating the incidence of disease) and prediction studies (eg, modelling a patient’s risk of disease). These graphs can also help communicate the assumptions necessary to interpret results to collaborators, researchers, reviewers, readers, and editors. Despite their potential utility, wide variation in the use …
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
如何使用有向无环图:临床研究人员指南
有向无环图通常用于说明和评估健康和社会研究中假设的因果机制。这些图表可以阐明研究人员的假设,并帮助清楚地描述在给定研究人员假设的数据中观察到的关联的每种可能的解释,从因果效应到混杂和选择偏差,从而帮助确定可用于减少或克服偏差的变量。本文解释了如何构建、解释和呈现有向无环图作为临床研究的一部分,以及它们如何帮助传达研究的优势或局限性。因果有向无环图(dag)是一种图,说明了感兴趣的变量之间假设的因果结构。这些图表可以说明可能原因之间的假定联系(例如,一种行为或医疗干预;本文中所指的暴露)可能的后果(例如,存在或不存在疾病;(在本文中称为结果)虽然因果图的使用由来已久,但DAGs在流行病学研究中的历史相对较短,但作为一种思考暴露-结果关联的因果结构的方法已经得到广泛应用dag可以用于许多目的,例如帮助识别混杂因素67,评估潜在的选择偏差89,以及理解测量错误11和缺失数据12在有效估计中可能具有的作用。最近的论文强调了dag如何改善流行病学和临床研究然而,它们也可以帮助理解描述性研究(例如,估计疾病的发病率)和预测研究(例如,为患者的疾病风险建模)。这些图表还可以帮助向合作者、研究人员、审稿人、读者和编辑传达解释结果所需的假设。尽管它们具有潜在的用途,但在使用方面存在很大差异……
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Regulating invasive cosmetic procedures to reduce harm. TB surge: Is England about to lose its low incidence status? Chronic heart failure in adults: diagnosis and management-summary of updated NICE guidance. EPA throws out science in favour of anti-regulatory ideology. Prenatal antiseizure drug exposure and risk of neurodevelopmental disorders in children: population based cohort study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1