Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33308213›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2020

Can statistical adjustment guided by causal inference improve the accuracy of effect estimation? A simulation and empirical research based on meta-analyses of case-control studies.

Ruohua Yan, Tianyi Liu, Yaguang Peng, Xiaoxia Peng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

4 authors.

Ruohua YanCenter for Clinical Epidemiology and Evidence-Based Medicine, Beijing Children's Hospital, Capital Medical University, National Center for Children's Health, Nanlishilu 56, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100045, China.
Tianyi LiuCenter for Clinical Epidemiology and Evidence-Based Medicine, Beijing Children's Hospital, Capital Medical University, National Center for Children's Health, Nanlishilu 56, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100045, China.
Yaguang PengCenter for Clinical Epidemiology and Evidence-Based Medicine, Beijing Children's Hospital, Capital Medical University, National Center for Children's Health, Nanlishilu 56, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100045, China.
Xiaoxia PengCenter for Clinical Epidemiology and Evidence-Based Medicine, Beijing Children's Hospital, Capital Medical University, National Center for Children's Health, Nanlishilu 56, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100045, China. pengxiaoxia@bch.com.cn.ORCID 0000-0001-8789-469X

Funding

Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals Clinical Medicine Development of Special Funding Support ZYLX201840Special Fund of the Pediatric Medical Coordinated Development Center of Beijing Hospitals Authority XTCX201812
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStatistical adjustment is often considered to control confounding bias in observational studies, especially case-control studies. However, different adjustment strategies may affect the estimation of odds ratios (ORs), and in turn affect the results of their pooled analyses. Our study is aimed to investigate how to deal with the statistical adjustment in case-control studies to improve the validity of meta-analyses.

methodsThree types of adjustment strategies were evaluated including insufficient adjustment (not all preset confounders were adjusted), full adjustment (all confounders were adjusted under the guidance of causal inference), and improper adjustment (covariates other than confounders were adjusted). We carried out a series of Monte Carlo simulation experiments based on predesigned scenarios, and assessed the accuracy of effect estimations from meta-analyses of case-control studies by combining ORs calculated according to different adjustment strategies. Then we used the data from an empirical review to illustrate the replicability of the simulation results.

resultsFor all scenarios with different strength of causal relations, combining ORs that were comprehensively adjusted for confounders would get the most precise effect estimation. By contrast, combining ORs that were not sufficiently adjusted for confounders or improperly adjusted for mediators or colliders would easily introduce bias in causal interpretation, especially when the true effect of exposure on outcome was weak or none. The findings of the simulation experiments were further verified by the empirical research.

conclusionsStatistical adjustment guided by causal inference are recommended for effect estimation. Therefore, when conducting meta-analyses of case-control studies, the causal relationship formulated by exposure, outcome, and covariates should be firstly understood through a directed acyclic graph, and then reasonable original ORs could be extracted and combined by suitable methods.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationMeta-Analysis as TopicBiasCase-Control StudiesCausalityEmpirical ResearchHumansResearch DesignRisk AssessmentCase–control studyCausal inferenceConfounderMeta-analysisSimulation

Identifiers

PMID33308213
PMCPMC7731571

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.