ArticleEGEMS (Washington, DC)2013
Effect identification in comparative effectiveness research.
Article in EGEMS (Washington, DC), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- How to add baskets to an ongoing basket trial with information borrowing.Statistical methods in medical research · 2025Article
- A comparison of Bayesian information borrowing methods in basket trials and a novel proposal of modified exchangeability-nonexchangeability method.Statistics in medicine · 2023Review
- Current practices in studies applying the target trial emulation framework: a protocol for a systematic review.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Squeezing observational data for better causal inference: Methods and examples for prevention research.International journal of psychology : Journal international de psychologie · 2017Article
- Methodologic Issues When Estimating Risks in Pharmacoepidemiology.Current epidemiology reports · 2016Article
- Twenty Years of Neighborhood Effect Research: An Assessment.Current epidemiology reports · 2015Article
- Accelerating regulatory progress in multi-institutional research.EGEMS (Washington, DC) · 2014Article
- eGEMs' Early Adventures in Open Access Publishing.EGEMS (Washington, DC) · 2014Article
- Resilient to Pain: A Model of How Yoga May Decrease Interference Among People Experiencing Chronic Pain.Explore (New York, N.Y.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The widespread adoption of electronic medical records means there are now vast data resources available for comparative effectiveness research (CER). In concert with conventional randomized controlled trials, CER holds great promise for advancing our understanding of how different therapeutic treatments yield different health outcomes in different settings and with different populations. But in a research culture fixated on estimating correlations and p-values, the threat of misinterpretation of results and improper CER inferences is troubling. Accordingly, this paper aims to shore up the inferential foundations of CER by introducing the fundamentals of effect identification, which is the process of identifying or teasing out empirically defensible causal effects from competing explanations. Three primary requirements of effect identification-positivity, exchangeability, and consistency- are explained and simple exampled are given. The take home message is that so-called big data from medical records may not yield better or more useful results. Advances will come only when the right question is addressed with the appropriate data and methods.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.