A Guideline for Reporting Mediation Analyses of Randomized Trials and Observational Studies | Guidelines | JN Learning | AMA Ed Hub [Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]

A Guideline for Reporting Mediation Analyses of Randomized Trials and Observational StudiesThe AGReMA Statement

Educational Objective
To understand the elements of studies that use mediation analyses.
1 Credit CME
Key Points

Question  What information should be reported in studies that include mediation analyses of randomized trials and observational studies?

Findings  An international Delphi and consensus process (using the Enhancing Quality and Transparency of Health Research methodological framework) generated a 25-item reporting guideline for primary reports of mediation analyses and a 9-item short form for secondary reports of mediation analyses.

Meaning  Using the 25-item or 9-item reporting guideline may facilitate peer review and could help ensure that studies using mediation analyses are completely, accurately, and transparently reported.

Abstract

Importance  Mediation analyses of randomized trials and observational studies can generate evidence about the mechanisms by which interventions and exposures may influence health outcomes. Publications of mediation analyses are increasing, but the quality of their reporting is suboptimal.

Objective  To develop international, consensus-based guidance for the reporting of mediation analyses of randomized trials and observational studies (A Guideline for Reporting Mediation Analyses; AGReMA).

Design, Setting, and Participants  The AGReMA statement was developed using the Enhancing Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework for developing reporting guidelines. The guideline development process included (1) an overview of systematic reviews to assess the need for a reporting guideline; (2) review of systematic reviews of relevant evidence on reporting mediation analyses; (3) conducting a Delphi survey with panel members that included methodologists, statisticians, clinical trialists, epidemiologists, psychologists, applied clinical researchers, clinicians, implementation scientists, evidence synthesis experts, representatives from the EQUATOR Network, and journal editors (n = 19; June-November 2019); (4) having a consensus meeting (n = 15; April 28-29, 2020); and (5) conducting a 4-week external review and pilot test that included methodologists and potential users of AGReMA (n = 21; November 2020).

Results  A previously reported overview of 54 systematic reviews of mediation studies demonstrated the need for a reporting guideline. Thirty-three potential reporting items were identified from 3 systematic reviews of mediation studies. Over 3 rounds, the Delphi panelists ranked the importance of these items, provided 60 qualitative comments for item refinement and prioritization, and suggested new items for consideration. All items were reviewed during a 2-day consensus meeting and participants agreed on a 25-item AGReMA statement for studies in which mediation analyses are the primary focus and a 9-item short-form AGReMA statement for studies in which mediation analyses are a secondary focus. These checklists were externally reviewed and pilot tested by 21 expert methodologists and potential users, which led to minor adjustments and consolidation of the checklists.

Conclusions and Relevance  The AGReMA statement provides recommendations for reporting primary and secondary mediation analyses of randomized trials and observational studies. Improved reporting of studies that use mediation analyses could facilitate peer review and help produce publications that are complete, accurate, transparent, and reproducible.

Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates

Buy This Activity

JN Learning™ is the home for CME and MOC from the JAMA Network. Search by specialty or US state and earn AMA PRA Category 1 CME Credit™ from articles, audio, Clinical Challenges and more. Learn more about CME/MOC

Article Information

Accepted for Publication: August 4, 2021.

Corresponding Author: Hopin Lee, PhD, Botnar Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Windmill Road, Oxford OX3 7LD, England (hopin.lee@ndorms.ox.ac.uk).

The AGReMA group authors: A. Russell Localio, PhD; Ludo van Amelsvoort, PhD; Eliseo Guallar, PhD; Judith Rijnhart, PhD; Kimberley Goldsmith, PhD; Amanda J. Fairchild, PhD; Cara C. Lewis, PhD; Steven J. Kamper, PhD; Christopher M. Williams, PhD; Nicholas Henschke, PhD.

Affiliations of The AGReMA group authors: School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia (Williams); Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (Localio); Associate Editor, Annals of Internal Medicine (Localio); Faculty of Health, Medicine, and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands (van Amelsvoort); Assoicate Editor, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (van Amelsvoort); Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland (Guallar); Deputy Editor, Annals of Internal Medicine (Guallar); Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (Rijnhart); Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, England (Goldsmith); Department of Psychology, University of South Carolina, Columbia (Fairchild); Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle (Lewis); School of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia (Kamper); Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District, Kingswood, Australia (Kamper); School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia (Henschke).

Author Contributions: Drs Lee and Cashin had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Lee, Cashin, Lamb, Hopewell, VanderWeele, MacKinnon, Mansell, Golub, McAuley, Localio, van Amelsvoort, Guallar, Fairchild, Kamper, Williams, Henschke.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Lee, Cashin, Lamb, Hopewell, Vansteelandt, VanderWeele, MacKinnon, Collins, McAuley, Localio, van Amelsvoort, Rijnhart, Goldsmith, Lewis, Williams, Henschke.

Drafting of the manuscript: Lee, Cashin, Lamb, Hopewell, Mansell, Collins, Golub, McAuley.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Lee, MacKinnon, Collins, Localio.

Obtained funding: Lee, McAuley, Kamper, Henschke.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Lee, Cashin, VanderWeele, Fairchild, Henschke.

Supervision: Lee, Lamb, Vansteelandt, MacKinnon, McAuley, Kamper, Williams, Henschke.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Lamb reported being a member of boards for the Health Technology Assessment (additional capacity funding board, end of life care and add-on studies board, prioritization group board, and trauma board). Dr VanderWeele reported receiving personal fees from Statistical Horizons. Dr Localio reported receiving grants from the Annals of Internal Medicine. Dr Guallar reported receiving personal fees from the American College of Physicians (Annals of Internal Medicine). Dr Kamper reported receiving grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Fellowship. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: This work was supported by project funding from the University of California, Berkeley, Initiative for Transparency in the Social Sciences, a program of the Center for Effective Global Action, with support from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. Dr Lee was supported by the Neil Hamilton Fairley Early Career Fellowship award APP1126767 from the National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr VanderWeele reported receiving grant R01CA222147 from the National Cancer Institute. Dr MacKinnon was supported by grant R37DA09757 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr Collins was supported by the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre and programme grant C49297/A27294 from Cancer Research UK.

Role of the Funders/Sponsors: The funders/sponsors had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Disclaimer: Dr Golub is Deputy Editor of JAMA, but he was not involved in any of the decisions regarding review of the manuscript or its acceptance.

Additional Contributions: We thank Anika Jamieson, BBA (Neuroscience Research Australia), for administrative support and Rob Froud, PhD (director and shareholder of Clinvivo), and the wider Clinvivo team for their services in executing the Delphi study. Ms Jamieson and Dr Froud were not compensated for their roles. The Clinvivo team was compensated for their role in the study. We acknowledge the contributions made by the Delphi panelists, the AGReMA international consensus meeting participants, the AGReMA external review experts (eTable 1 in the Supplement), and the UK EQUATOR Centre for administrative support.

References
1.
VanderWeele  TJ .  Explanation in Causal Inference: Methods for Mediation and Interaction. Oxford University Press; 2015.
2.
Lee  H , Herbert  RD , McAuley  JH .  Mediation analysis.   JAMA. 2019;321(7):697-698. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.21973Google ScholarCrossref
3.
Nielsen  L , Riddle  M , King  JW ,  et al; NIH Science of Behavior Change Implementation Team.  The NIH Science of Behavior Change Program: transforming the science through a focus on mechanisms of change.   Behav Res Ther. 2018;101:3-11. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2017.07.002PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
National Institute for Health Research. Efficacy and mechanism evaluation. Accessed August 28, 2020. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/explore-nihr/funding-programmes/efficacy-and-mechanism-evaluation.htm
5.
Nguyen  TQ , Schmid  I , Stuart  EA .  Clarifying causal mediation analysis for the applied researcher: defining effects based on what we want to learn.   Psychol Methods. 2021;26(2):255-271. doi:10.1037/met0000299PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Cashin  AG , Lee  H , Lamb  SE ,  et al.  An overview of systematic reviews found suboptimal reporting and methodological limitations of mediation studies investigating causal mechanisms.   J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;111:60-68.e1. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.03.005PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Vo  T-T , Superchi  C , Boutron  I , Vansteelandt  S .  The conduct and reporting of mediation analysis in recently published randomized controlled trials: results from a methodological systematic review.   J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;117:78-88. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.10.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Moher  D , Schulz  KF , Simera  I , Altman  DG .  Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines.   PLoS Med. 2010;7(2):e1000217. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217PubMedGoogle Scholar
9.
Cashin  AG , McAuley  JH , Lamb  SE ,  et al.  Development of A Guideline for Reporting Mediation Analyses (AGReMA).   BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):19. doi:10.1186/s12874-020-0915-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Liu  S-H , Ulbricht  CM , Chrysanthopoulou  SA , Lapane  KL .  Implementation and reporting of causal mediation analysis in 2015: a systematic review in epidemiological studies.   BMC Res Notes. 2016;9(1):354. doi:10.1186/s13104-016-2163-7PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Lapointe-Shaw  L , Bouck  Z , Howell  NA ,  et al.  Mediation analysis with a time-to-event outcome: a review of use and reporting in healthcare research.   BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):118. doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0578-7PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
MacKinnon  D .  Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2008.
13.
Cashin  AG , McAuley  JH , Lamb  S ,  et al.  Items for consideration in a reporting guideline for mediation analyses: a Delphi study.   BMJ Evid Based Med. 2021;26(3):106.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
VanderWeele  TJ , Tchetgen Tchetgen  EJ .  Mediation analysis with matched case-control study designs.   Am J Epidemiol. 2016;183(9):869-870. doi:10.1093/aje/kww038PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Fritz  MS , Mackinnon  DP .  Required sample size to detect the mediated effect.   Psychol Sci. 2007;18(3):233-239. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01882.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Robins  JM , Greenland  S .  Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects.   Epidemiology. 1992;3(2):143-155. doi:10.1097/00001648-199203000-00013PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Vansteelandt  S , Daniel  RM .  Interventional effects for mediation analysis with multiple mediators.   Epidemiology. 2017;28(2):258-265. doi:10.1097/EDE.0000000000000596PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Boers  AMM , Jansen  IGH , Brown  S ,  et al.  Mediation of the relationship between endovascular therapy and functional outcome by follow-up infarct volume in patients with acute ischemic stroke.   JAMA Neurol. 2019;76(2):194-202. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.3661PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Stensrud  MJ , Strohmaier  S .  Diastolic hypotension due to intensive blood pressure therapy: is it harmful?   Atherosclerosis. 2017;265:29-34. doi:10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2017.07.019PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Tennant  PWG , Murray  EJ , Arnold  KF ,  et al.  Use of directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) to identify confounders in applied health research: review and recommendations.   Int J Epidemiol. 2021;50(2):620-632. doi:10.1093/ije/dyaa213Google ScholarCrossref
21.
Greenland  S , Pearl  J , Robins  JM .  Causal diagrams for epidemiologic research.   Epidemiology. 1999;10(1):37-48. doi:10.1097/00001648-199901000-00008PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Nguyen  TQ , Schmid  I , Ogburn  EL , Stuart  EA . Clarifying causal mediation analysis for the applied researcher: effect identification via three assumptions and five potential outcomes. Accessed August 16, 2021. https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.09537
23.
Hernán  MA , Sauer  BC , Hernández-Díaz  S , Platt  R , Shrier  I .  Specifying a target trial prevents immortal time bias and other self-inflicted injuries in observational analyses.   J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;79:70-75. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.04.014PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Hoffmann  TC , Glasziou  PP , Boutron  I ,  et al.  Better reporting of interventions: Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide.   BMJ. 2014;348:g1687. doi:10.1136/bmj.g1687PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
VanderWeele  TJ , Valeri  L , Ogburn  EL .  The role of measurement error and misclassification in mediation analysis: mediation and measurement error.   Epidemiology. 2012;23(4):561-564. doi:10.1097/EDE.0b013e318258f5e4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Hróbjartsson  A , Thomsen  ASS , Emanuelsson  F ,  et al.  Observer bias in randomised clinical trials with binary outcomes: systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded outcome assessors.   BMJ. 2012;344(7848):e1119. doi:10.1136/bmj.e1119PubMedGoogle Scholar
27.
VanderWeele  TJ .  Direct and indirect effects for neighborhood-based clustered and longitudinal data.   Sociol Methods Res. 2010;38(4):515-544. doi:10.1177/0049124110366236PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Vanderweele  TJ , Hong  G , Jones  SM , Brown  JL .  Mediation and spillover effects in group-randomized trials: a case study of the 4Rs educational intervention.   J Am Stat Assoc. 2013;108(502):469-482. doi:10.1080/01621459.2013.779832PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
MacKinnon  DP , Lockwood  CM , Hoffman  JM , West  SG , Sheets  V .  A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects.   Psychol Methods. 2002;7(1):83-104. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Imai  K , Keele  L , Tingley  D .  A general approach to causal mediation analysis.   Psychol Methods. 2010;15(4):309-334. doi:10.1037/a0020761PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
VanderWeele  TJ , Shpitser  I .  A new criterion for confounder selection.   Biometrics. 2011;67(4):1406-1413. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0420.2011.01619.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Sterne  JAC , White  IR , Carlin  JB ,  et al.  Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls.   BMJ. 2009;338:b2393. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2393PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
VanderWeele  TJ , Vansteelandt  S .  Mediation analysis with multiple mediators.   Epidemiol Methods. 2014;2(1):95-115. doi:10.1515/em-2012-0010PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Smith  LH , VanderWeele  TJ .  Mediational E-values: approximate sensitivity analysis for unmeasured mediator-outcome confounding.   Epidemiology. 2019;30(6):835-837. doi:10.1097/EDE.0000000000001064PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Sharples  L , Papachristofi  O , Rex  S , Landau  S .  Exploring mechanisms of action in clinical trials of complex surgical interventions using mediation analysis.   Clin Trials. 2020;17(6):654-663. doi:10.1177/1740774520947644PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Miočević  M , O’Rourke  HP , MacKinnon  DP , Brown  HC .  Statistical properties of four effect-size measures for mediation models.   Behav Res Methods. 2018;50(1):285-301. doi:10.3758/s13428-017-0870-1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Imai  K , Keele  L , Yamamoto  T .  Identification, inference and sensitivity analysis for causal mediation effects.   Stat Sci. 2010;25(1):51-71. doi:10.1214/10-STS321Google ScholarCrossref
38.
Vansteelandt  S .  Understanding counterfactual-based mediation analysis approaches and their differences.   Epidemiology. 2012;23(6):889-891. doi:10.1097/EDE.0b013e31826d0f6fPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Valeri  L , Coull  BA .  Estimating causal contrasts involving intermediate variables in the presence of selection bias.   Stat Med. 2016;35(26):4779-4793. doi:10.1002/sim.7025PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Li  W , Zhou  X-H .  Identifiability and estimation of causal mediation effects with missing data.   Stat Med. 2017;36(25):3948-3965. doi:10.1002/sim.7413PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Bero  L .  Addressing bias and conflict of interest among biomedical researchers.   JAMA. 2017;317(17):1723-1724. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.3854Google ScholarCrossref
42.
Wilkinson  MD , Dumontier  M , Aalbersberg  IJ ,  et al.  The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship.   Sci Data. 2016;3:160018. doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.18PubMedGoogle Scholar
If you are not a JN Learning subscriber, you can either:
Subscribe to JN Learning for one year
Buy this activity
jn-learning_Modal_Multimedia_LoginSubscribe_Purchase
Close
If you are not a JN Learning subscriber, you can either:
Subscribe to JN Learning for one year
Buy this activity
jn-learning_Modal_Multimedia_LoginSubscribe_Purchase
Close
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right
Close

Name Your Search

Save Search
Close
With a personal account, you can:
  • Track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
jn-learning_Modal_SaveSearch_NoAccess_Purchase
Close

Lookup An Activity

or

Close

My Saved Searches

You currently have no searches saved.

Close
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right
Close