ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2019
Using Bounds to Compare the Strength of Exchangeability Assumptions for Internal and External Validity.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sensitivity Analyses for Means or Proportions with Missing Outcome Data.Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2023Article
- Toward a Clearer Definition of Selection Bias When Estimating Causal Effects.Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2022Article
- Reflection on modern methods: constructing directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) with domain experts for health services research.International journal of epidemiology · 2022Article
- Reflection on modern methods: combining weights for confounding and missing data.International journal of epidemiology · 2022Article
- Target validity: Bringing treatment of external validity in line with internal validity.Current epidemiology reports · 2020Article
- Effect heterogeneity and variable selection for standardizing causal effects to a target population.European journal of epidemiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the absence of strong assumptions (e.g., exchangeability), only bounds for causal effects can be identified. Here we describe bounds for the risk difference for an effect of a binary exposure on a binary outcome in 4 common study settings: observational studies and randomized studies, each with and without simple random selection from the target population. Through these scenarios, we introduce randomizations for selection and treatment, and the widths of the bounds are narrowed from 2 (the width of the range of the risk difference) to 0 (point identification). We then assess the strength of the assumptions of exchangeability for internal and external validity by comparing their contributions to the widths of the bounds in the setting of an observational study without random selection from the target population. We find that when less than two-thirds of the target population is selected into the study, the assumption of exchangeability for external validity of the risk difference is stronger than that for internal validity. The relative strength of these assumptions should be considered when designing, analyzing, and interpreting observational studies and will aid in determining the best methods for estimating the causal effects of interest.
Indexed as
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.