Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21556288›Full record

ReviewThe international journal of biostatistics2011

Principal stratification--a goal or a tool?

Judea Pearl

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The international journal of biostatistics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Bounded, efficient and multiply robust estimation of average treatment effects using instrumental variables.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, Statistical methodology · 2018
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Causal analysis of ordinal treatments and binary outcomes under truncation by death.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, Statistical methodology · 2017
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Estimating the health benefit of reducing indoor air pollution in a randomized environmental intervention.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A, (Statistics in Society) · 2015
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Nonparametric Bounds and Sensitivity Analysis of Treatment Effects.Statistical science : a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics · 2014
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Judea PearlUniversity of California, Los Angeles, USA.

Funding

Data Structuring and Visualization System for Neuro-oncologyR01LM009961 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI TAIRA, RICKY K. · 2009 to 2010
$1.7M
NLM NIH HHS 1R01 LM009961-01NLM NIH HHS R01 LM009961
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Principal stratification has recently become a popular tool to address certain causal inference questions, particularly in dealing with post-randomization factors in randomized trials. Here, we analyze the conceptual basis for this framework and invite response to clarify the value of principal stratification in estimating causal effects of interest.

Indexed as

CausalityModels, StatisticalRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignHumanscausal inferencedirect effectmediationprincipal stratificationsurrogate endpoints

Identifiers

PMID21556288
PMCPMC3083139

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.