Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32964526›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2020

Formulating causal questions and principled statistical answers.

Els Goetghebeur, Saskia le Cessie, Bianca De Stavola, Erica Em Moodie, Ingeborg Waernbaum, “on behalf of” the topic group Causal Inference (TG7) of the STRATOS initiative

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Causal clarity in statistical software.International journal of epidemiology · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Els GoetghebeurDepartment of Applied Mathematics, Computer Science and Statistics, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-8896-0721
Saskia le CessieDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology/Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Bianca De StavolaGreat Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, UK.
Erica Em MoodieDivision of Biostatistics, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7225-3977
Ingeborg WaernbaumDepartment of Statistics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
“on behalf of” the topic group Causal Inference (TG7) of the STRATOS initiative

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/R025215/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although review papers on causal inference methods are now available, there is a lack of introductory overviews on what they can render and on the guiding criteria for choosing one particular method. This tutorial gives an overview in situations where an exposure of interest is set at a chosen baseline ("point exposure") and the target outcome arises at a later time point. We first phrase relevant causal questions and make a case for being specific about the possible exposure levels involved and the populations for which the question is relevant. Using the potential outcomes framework, we describe principled definitions of causal effects and of estimation approaches classified according to whether they invoke the no unmeasured confounding assumption (including outcome regression and propensity score-based methods) or an instrumental variable with added assumptions. We mainly focus on continuous outcomes and causal average treatment effects. We discuss interpretation, challenges, and potential pitfalls and illustrate application using a "simulation learner," that mimics the effect of various breastfeeding interventions on a child's later development. This involves a typical simulation component with generated exposure, covariate, and outcome data inspired by a randomized intervention study. The simulation learner further generates various (linked) exposure types with a set of possible values per observation unit, from which observed as well as potential outcome data are generated. It thus provides true values of several causal effects. R code for data generation and analysis is available on www.ofcaus.org, where SAS and Stata code for analysis is also provided.

Indexed as

Research DesignCausalityChildComputer SimulationHumansPropensity Scorecausationinstrumental variableinverse probability weightingmatchingpotential outcomespropensity score

Identifiers

PMID32964526
PMCPMC7756489

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.