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 …
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信