Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29653993›Full record

ReviewJournal of epidemiology and community health2018

Synthetic control methodology as a tool for evaluating population-level health interventions.

Janet Bouttell, Peter Craig, James Lewsey, Mark Robinson, Frank Popham

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of epidemiology and community health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing 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

80 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Janet BouttellHealth Economics and Health Technology Assessment, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Peter CraigMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
James LewseyHealth Economics and Health Technology Assessment, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Mark RobinsonPublic Health Observatory, NHS Health Scotland, Glasgow, UK.
Frank PophamMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office SPHSU13Chief Scientist Office SPHSU15Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/13Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/15
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany public health interventions cannot be evaluated using randomised controlled trials so they rely on the assessment of observational data. Techniques for evaluating public health interventions using observational data include interrupted time series analysis, panel data regression-based approaches, regression discontinuity and instrumental variable approaches. The inclusion of a counterfactual improves causal inference for approaches based on time series analysis, but the selection of a suitable counterfactual or control area can be problematic. The synthetic control method builds a counterfactual using a weighted combination of potential control units.

methodsWe explain the synthetic control method, summarise its use in health research to date, set out its advantages, assumptions and limitations and describe its implementation through a case study of life expectancy following German reunification.

resultsAdvantages of the synthetic control method are that it offers an approach suitable when there is a small number of treated units and control units and it does not rely on parallel preimplementation trends like difference in difference methods. The credibility of the result relies on achieving a good preimplementation fit for the outcome of interest between treated unit and synthetic control. If a good preimplementation fit is established over an extended period of time, a discrepancy in the outcome variable following the intervention can be interpreted as an intervention effect. It is critical that the synthetic control is built from a pool of potential controls that are similar to the treated unit. There is currently no consensus on what constitutes a 'good fit' or how to judge similarity. Traditional statistical inference is not appropriate with this approach, although alternatives are available. From our review, we noted that the synthetic control method has been underused in public health.

conclusionsSynthetic control methods are a valuable addition to the range of approaches for evaluating public health interventions when randomisation is impractical. They deserve to be more widely applied, ideally in combination with other methods so that the dependence of findings on particular assumptions can be assessed.

Indexed as

Population HealthGermanyHealth PromotionHumansLife ExpectancyProgram Evaluationhealth impact assessmentmethodologypublic healthresearch methods

Identifiers

PMID29653993
PMCPMC6204967

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.