Commentary: The formal approach to quantitative causal inference in epidemiology: misguided or misrepresented?

Rhian M. Daniel,Bianca L. De Stavola,Stijn Vansteelandt

doi:10.1093/ije/dyw227

Abstract

Commentary: The formal approach to quantitative causal inference in epidemiology: misguided or misrepresented?

Highlights

Two recent articles, one by Vandenbroucke, Broadbent and Pearce ( VBP)[1] and the other by Krieger and Davey Smith ( KDS),[2] criticize what these two sets of authors characterize as the mainstream of the modern ‘causal inference’ school in epidemiology
In our Discussion we present further objections we have to the arguments in the two papers, before concluding that the clarity gained from adopting a rigorous framework is an asset, not an obstacle, to answering more reliably a very wide range of causal questions using data from observational studies of many different designs
To be able to identify, from across the many possible associations between exposure and outcome that one could measure, the one that targets the causal enquiry at stake, the FACE has adopted the notion of hypothetical interventions

Summary

Introduction

One by Vandenbroucke, Broadbent and Pearce ( VBP)[1] and the other by Krieger and Davey Smith ( KDS),[2] criticize what these two sets of authors characterize as the mainstream of the modern ‘causal inference’ school in epidemiology. KDS in particular criticize directed acyclic graphs (DAGs), using three examples to do so Their discussion highlights further misconceptions concerning the role of DAGs in causal inference, and so we devote the third section of the paper to addressing these. VBP characterize the mainstream view within what they call the ‘causal inference movement in epidemiology’ as belonging to the ‘restricted potential outcomes approach’, which they define to be the approach in which only the effects of exposures that correspond to currently humanly feasible interventions can be studied. We don’t much like the term ‘movement’, and so—for want of a better label, and to avoid cumbersome repetitive descriptions—we’ll call the school of thought that both VBP and KDS have in their sight the ‘Formal Approach to quantitative Causal inference in Epidemiology’, or FACE.

Findings

Discussion

Conclusion