ABSTRACT
Background Directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) are an increasingly popular approach for identifying confounding variables that require adjustment when estimating causal effects. This review examined the use of DAGs in applied health research to inform recommendations for improving their transparency and utility in future research.
Methods Original health research articles published during 1999-2017 mentioning “directed acyclic graphs” or similar or citing DAGitty were identified from Scopus, Web of Science, Medline, and Embase. Data were extracted on the reporting of: estimands, DAGs, and adjustment sets, alongside the characteristics of each article’s largest DAG.
Results A total of 234 articles were identified that reported using DAGs. A fifth (n=48, 21%) reported their target estimand(s) and half (n=115, 48%) reported the adjustment set(s) implied by their DAG(s).
Two-thirds of the articles (n=144, 62%) made at least one DAG available. Diagrams varied in size but averaged 12 nodes (IQR: 9-16, range: 3-28) and 29 arcs (IQR: 19-42, range: 3-99). The median saturation (i.e. percentage of total possible arcs) was 46% (IQR: 31-67, range: 12-100). 37% (n=53) of the DAGs included unobserved variables, 17% (n=25) included super-nodes (i.e. nodes containing more than one variable, and a 34% (n=49) were arranged so the constituent arcs flowed in a consistent direction.
Conclusions There is substantial variation in the use and reporting of DAGs in applied health research. Although this partly reflects their flexibility, it also highlight some potential areas for improvement. This review hence offers several recommendations to improve the reporting and use of DAGs in future research.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study received no specific funding. KFA and SCG are grateful for PhD funding from the Economic and Social Research Council, UK (ES/J500215/1 and ES/P000746/1, respectively). LB is grateful for PhD funding from the Medical Research Council, UK (MR/K501402/1). GDT is grateful for PhD funding from The Alan Turing Institute [EP/N510129/1]. MSG and PWGT are both supported by The Alan Turing Institute [EP/N510129/1].
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data provided directly in supplementary material
