Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29321046›Full record

SynthesisTrials2018

Application of causal inference methods in the analyses of randomised controlled trials: a systematic review.

Ruth E Farmer, Daphne Kounali, A Sarah Walker, Jelena Savović, Alison Richards, Margaret T May, Deborah Ford

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Trials, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Ruth E FarmerMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, UCL School of Life and Medical Sciences, London, UK. ruth.farmer@lshtm.ac.uk.
Daphne KounaliBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
A Sarah WalkerMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, UCL School of Life and Medical Sciences, London, UK.
Jelena SavovićBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Alison RichardsBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Margaret T MayBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Deborah FordMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, UCL School of Life and Medical Sciences, London, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council G0701659Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/21Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/21, MC_UU_12023/22 , MC_UU_12023/26Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/21, MC_UU_12023/22, MC_UU_12023/26Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/22Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/26Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundApplications of causal inference methods to randomised controlled trial (RCT) data have usually focused on adjusting for compliance with the randomised intervention rather than on using RCT data to address other, non-randomised questions. In this paper we review use of causal inference methods to assess the impact of aspects of patient management other than the randomised intervention in RCTs.

methodsWe identified papers that used causal inference methodology in RCT data from Medline, Premedline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from 1986 to September 2014, using a forward citation search of five seminal papers, and a keyword search. We did not include studies where inverse probability weighting was used solely to balance baseline characteristics, adjust for loss to follow-up or adjust for non-compliance to randomised treatment. Studies where the exposure could not be assigned were also excluded.

resultsThere were 25 papers identified. Nearly half the papers (11/25) estimated the causal effect of concomitant medication on outcome. The remainder were concerned with post-randomisation treatment regimens (sequential treatments, n =5 ), effects of treatment timing (n = 2) and treatment dosing or duration (n = 7). Examples were found in cardiovascular disease (n = 5), HIV (n = 7), cancer (n = 6), mental health (n = 4), paediatrics (n = 2) and transfusion medicine (n = 1). The most common method implemented was a marginal structural model with inverse probability of treatment weighting.

conclusionsExamples of studies which exploit RCT data to address non-randomised questions using causal inference methodology remain relatively limited, despite the growth in methodological development and increasing utilisation in observational studies. Further efforts may be needed to promote use of causal methods to address additional clinical questions within RCTs to maximise their value.

Indexed as

Data AnalysisRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicHumansProbabilityCausal inferenceG-computationG-estimationMarginal nested modelsMarginal structural modelsRCTSystematic reviewTime-dependent confounding

Identifiers

PMID29321046
PMCPMC5761133

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.