[Skip to Content]

Quiz

Guidelines

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

JAMA

Published Online: September 21, 2021

Special Communication

Article Information and Disclosures

Hopin Lee, PhD^1,2;

Aidan G. Cashin, PhD^3,4;

Sarah E. Lamb, DPhil^1,5;

et al

Sally Hopewell, DPhil¹;

Stijn Vansteelandt, PhD^6,7;

Tyler J. VanderWeele, PhD⁸;

David P. MacKinnon, PhD⁹;

Gemma Mansell, PhD¹⁰;

Gary S. Collins, PhD^1,11;

Robert M. Golub, MD^12,13;

James H. McAuley, PhD^4,14;

and the AGReMA group

Author Affiliations

¹Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, England
²School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
³Prince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
⁴Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney
⁵College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, England
⁶Department of Applied Mathematics, Computer Science, and Statistics, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
⁷Department of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England
⁸Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts
⁹Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Phoenix
¹⁰College of Health and Life Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, England
¹¹NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, England
¹²JAMA Editorial Office, Chicago, Illinois
¹³Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Department of Preventive Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
¹⁴School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

AGReMA groupand the

Read article on JAMA Network

Read Article Take Quiz

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.

Take Quiz

Buy This Activity

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

VanderWeele TJ . Explanation in Causal Inference: Methods for Mediation and Interaction. Oxford University Press; 2015.

Lee H , Herbert RD , McAuley JH . Mediation analysis. JAMA. 2019;321(7):697-698. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.21973 Google Scholar Crossref

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.2017.07.002 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

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

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/met0000299 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

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.2019.03.005 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

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.2019.10.001 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

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.1000217 PubMed Google Scholar

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/s12874-020-0915-5 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

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/s13104-016-2163-7 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

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/s12874-018-0578-7 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

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.PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

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/kww038 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

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.x PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

16.

Robins JM , Greenland S . Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology. 1992;3(2):143-155. doi:10.1097/00001648-199203000-00013 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

17.

Vansteelandt S , Daniel RM . Interventional effects for mediation analysis with multiple mediators. Epidemiology. 2017;28(2):258-265. doi:10.1097/EDE.0000000000000596 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

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.2018.3661 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

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.2017.07.019 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

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/dyaa213 Google Scholar Crossref

21.

Greenland S , Pearl J , Robins JM . Causal diagrams for epidemiologic research. Epidemiology. 1999;10(1):37-48. doi:10.1097/00001648-199901000-00008 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

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.2016.04.014 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

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.g1687 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

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.0b013e318258f5e4 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

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.e1119 PubMed Google Scholar

27.

VanderWeele TJ . Direct and indirect effects for neighborhood-based clustered and longitudinal data. Sociol Methods Res. 2010;38(4):515-544. doi:10.1177/0049124110366236 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

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:10.1080/01621459.2013.779832 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

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.7.1.83 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

30.

Imai K , Keele L , Tingley D . A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Psychol Methods. 2010;15(4):309-334. doi:10.1037/a0020761 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

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.x PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

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.b2393 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

33.

VanderWeele TJ , Vansteelandt S . Mediation analysis with multiple mediators. Epidemiol Methods. 2014;2(1):95-115. doi:10.1515/em-2012-0010 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

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.0000000000001064 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

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:10.1177/1740774520947644 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

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/s13428-017-0870-1 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

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-STS321 Google Scholar Crossref

38.

Vansteelandt S . Understanding counterfactual-based mediation analysis approaches and their differences. Epidemiology. 2012;23(6):889-891. doi:10.1097/EDE.0b013e31826d0f6f PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

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.7025 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

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.7413 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref

41.

Bero L . Addressing bias and conflict of interest among biomedical researchers. JAMA. 2017;317(17):1723-1724. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.3854 Google Scholar Crossref

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.2016.18 PubMed Google Scholar

AMA CME Accreditation Information

Credit Designation Statement: The American Medical Association designates this Journal-based CME activity activity for a maximum of 1.00  AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

Successful completion of this CME activity, which includes participation in the evaluation component, enables the participant to earn up to:

1.00 Medical Knowledge MOC points in the American Board of Internal Medicine's (ABIM) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program;;
1.00 Self-Assessment points in the American Board of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery’s (ABOHNS) Continuing Certification program;
1.00 MOC points in the American Board of Pediatrics’ (ABP) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program;
1.00 Lifelong Learning points in the American Board of Pathology’s (ABPath) Continuing Certification program; and
1.00 credit toward the CME [and Self-Assessment requirements] of the American Board of Surgery’s Continuous Certification program

It is the CME activity provider's responsibility to submit participant completion information to ACCME for the purpose of granting MOC credit.

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

Reporting Findings From Mediation Analyses

A Reporting Guideline for Mediation Analyses

Causal Directed Acyclic Graphs

AMA CME Accreditation Information

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

Reporting Findings From Mediation Analyses

A Reporting Guideline for Mediation Analyses

Causal Directed Acyclic Graphs

See More About

AMA CME Accreditation Information

Want full access to the AMA Ed Hub?

AMA Membership provides:

Sign in to access

Want full access to the AMA Ed Hub?

Sign in to customize your interests

With a personal account, you can:

Name Your Search

Sign in to save your search

With a personal account, you can:

Lookup An Activity

My Saved Searches

My Saved Courses

Purchase access