In Reply We appreciate the comments of Cogo-Moreira and Swardfager on our path analyses.1 We agree with their first comment that there is always a possibility that other factors that are not included in our model may link the predictor (Aβ positivity or cerebral small vessel disease [CSVD]) and the outcome (Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE]) (see Figure 3 of our article1). Considering possible unmeasured factors, power issues, and that the mediation did not explain most of the observed total effects, it may not be appropriate to conclude the complete mediation in our pathway. However, we used the term “complete mediation” according to previous literature,2 as the direct association was no longer significant when the mediator (tau) was added to the model. Indeed, a substantial portion (45.9% and 61.4% for the top and bottom model of Figure 3, respectively) was explained by the mediator (tau), which is likely to be of clinical relevance.
Kim HJ, Kim S, Seo SW. On Mediation Models in Clinical Neurology Studies—Reply. JAMA Neurol. 2019;76(1):117. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.3887
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: