ArticleStatistics in medicine2019
Approaches to treatment effect heterogeneity in the presence of confounding.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A perspective on individualized treatment effects estimation from time-series health data.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026Review
- Assessing Vulnerability to Surges in Suicide-Related Tweets Using Japan Census Data: Case-Only Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Estimating heterogeneous survival treatment effect in observational data using machine learning.Statistics in medicine · 2021Article
- Using the Causal Inference Framework to Support Individualized Drug Treatment Decisions Based on Observational Healthcare Data.Clinical epidemiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The literature on causal effect estimation tends to focus on the population mean estimand, which is less informative as medical treatments are becoming more personalized and there is increasing awareness that subpopulations of individuals may experience a group-specific effect that differs from the population average. In fact, it is possible that there is underlying systematic effect heterogeneity that is obscured by focusing on the population mean estimand. In this context, understanding which covariates contribute to this treatment effect heterogeneity (TEH) and how these covariates determine the differential treatment effect (TE) is an important consideration. Towards such an understanding, this paper briefly reviews three approaches used in making causal inferences and conducts a simulation study to compare these approaches according to their performance in an exploratory evaluation of TEH when the heterogeneous subgroups are not known a priori. Performance metrics include the detection of any heterogeneity, the identification and characterization of heterogeneous subgroups, and unconfounded estimation of the TE within subgroups. The methods are then deployed in a comparative effectiveness evaluation of drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents among 54 099 Medicare beneficiaries in the continental United States admitted to a hospital with acute myocardial infarction in 2008.
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.