Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23661231›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2013

Causal inference, probability theory, and graphical insights.

Stuart G Baker

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Socioeconomic differences in the uptake of home dialysis.Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN · 2014
    Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Stuart G BakerBiometry Research Group, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA. sb16i@nih.gov

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Causal inference from observational studies is a fundamental topic in biostatistics. The causal graph literature typically views probability theory as insufficient to express causal concepts in observational studies. In contrast, the view here is that probability theory is a desirable and sufficient basis for many topics in causal inference for the following two reasons. First, probability theory is generally more flexible than causal graphs: Besides explaining such causal graph topics as M-bias (adjusting for a collider) and bias amplification and attenuation (when adjusting for instrumental variable), probability theory is also the foundation of the paired availability design for historical controls, which does not fit into a causal graph framework. Second, probability theory is the basis for insightful graphical displays including the BK-Plot for understanding Simpson's paradox with a binary confounder, the BK2-Plot for understanding bias amplification and attenuation in the presence of an unobserved binary confounder, and the PAD-Plot for understanding the principal stratification component of the paired availability design.

Indexed as

Probability TheoryBiasBiostatisticsCausalityHumansModels, StatisticalObservationResearch DesignBK-Plotcausal graphconfounderinstrumental variableobservational studySimpson's paradox

Identifiers

PMID23661231
PMCPMC4072761

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.