方法对比

	Negative Control Outcome Design	E-Value Sensitivity Analysis
领域	Social Epidemiology	Social Epidemiology
方法族	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
起源年份	2010	2017
提出者	Marc Lipsitch, Eric Tchetgen Tchetgen & Ted Cohen; Xu Shi & Wang Miao	Tyler J. VanderWeele & Peng Ding
类型	Falsification-and-correction pipeline for unmeasured confounding	Assumption-free sensitivity analysis for unmeasured confounding
开创性文献	Lipsitch, M., Tchetgen Tchetgen, E., & Cohen, T. (2010). Negative Controls: A Tool for Detecting Confounding and Bias in Observational Studies. Epidemiology, 21(3), 383-388.	VanderWeele, T. J., & Ding, P. (2017). Sensitivity analysis in observational research: introducing the E-value. Annals of Internal Medicine, 167(4), 268-274.
别名	Negative Controls, Negative Control Outcome, Negative Control Exposure, Falsification Endpoint Analysis	E-Value, E-Value for Unmeasured Confounding, VanderWeele-Ding E-Value, Bias Factor Sensitivity Analysis
相关	4	3
摘要	The negative control design uses a deliberately chosen outcome (or exposure) that cannot plausibly be caused by the exposure under study, yet is subject to the same unmeasured confounding, selection, or measurement processes as the real research question. If the exposure appears to 'affect' something it cannot possibly affect, that spurious association is a signature of residual bias. Lipsitch, Tchetgen Tchetgen, and Cohen formalized this falsification logic for epidemiology in 2010, specifying the conditions a valid negative control must satisfy. Shi, Miao, and Tchetgen Tchetgen's 2020 review extended the idea from detection toward correction, showing how pairs of negative control variables underpin proximal causal inference, which can recover an unbiased effect estimate even when the confounder is never measured.	The E-value, introduced by Tyler VanderWeele and Peng Ding in 2017, is a simple, assumption-free way to quantify how robust an observational association is to unmeasured confounding. It answers a single, sharply posed question: how strong would an unmeasured confounder have to be — in its association with both the exposure and the outcome — to fully explain away the observed effect? The larger the E-value, the more powerful a hidden confounder would need to be, and so the more robust the finding. The method rests on the bounding factor derived by Ding and VanderWeele in their 2016 'Sensitivity analysis without assumptions,' which holds regardless of the distribution or number of unmeasured confounders. Because it requires only the point estimate and confidence limit on the risk-ratio scale and no untestable bias parameters, the E-value has become a routine reporting standard in observational epidemiology, including social epidemiology where unmeasured confounding is pervasive.