Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34212387›Full record

ArticleHealth services research2021

Birds of a feather flock together: Comparing controlled pre-post designs.

Carrie E Fry, Laura A Hatfield

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Medicaid Expansion and Cancer Mortality by Race and Sex in Louisiana.American journal of preventive medicine · 2022
    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

2 authors.

Carrie E FryInterfaculty Initiative in Health Policy, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0661-847X
Laura A HatfieldDepartment of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Funding

Health Policy Training Program: Promoting Outcomes, Quality, Equity and Diffusion of AdvancesT32MH019733 · NIMH · HARVARD UNIVERSITY (MEDICAL SCHOOL) · PI Benjamin Le Cook, Haiden A Huskamp · 1993 to 2026
$7.0M
NIMH NIH HHS T32 MH019733
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo formalize comparative interrupted time series (CITS) using the potential outcomes framework; compare two version of CITS-a standard linear version and one that adds postperiod group-by-time parameters-to two versions of difference-in-differences (DID)-a standard version with time fixed effects and one that adds group-specific pretrends; and reanalyze three previously published papers using these models. DATA SOURCES: Outcome data for reanalyses come from two counties' jail booking and release data, Medicaid prescription drug rebate data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and acute hepatitis C incidence from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. STUDY

designDID and CITS were compared using potential outcomes, and reanalyses were conducted using the four described pre-post study designs. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION

methodsData from county jails were provided by sheriffs. Data from CMS are publicly available. Data for the third reanalysis were provided by the authors of the original study. PRINCIPAL

findingsThough written differently and preferred by different research communities, the general version of CITS and DID with group-specific pretrends are the same: they yield the same counterfactuals and identify the same treatment effects. In a reanalysis with evidence of divergent preperiod trends, failing to account for this in standard DID led to an 84% smaller effect estimate than the more flexible models. In a second reanalysis with evidence of nonlinear outcome trends, failing to account for this in linear CITS led to a 28% smaller effect estimate than the more flexible models.

conclusionWe recommend detailing a causal model for treatment selection and outcome generation and the required counterfactuals before choosing an analytical approach. The more flexible versions of DID and CITS can accommodate features often found in real data, namely, nonlinearities and divergent preperiod outcome trends.

Indexed as

Epidemiologic StudiesAcute DiseaseHepatitis CHumansInterrupted Time Series AnalysisMedicaidPrescription DrugsPrisonsResearch DesignUnited StatesPrescription Drugseconometricsevaluation design and researchobservational data/quasi-experimentsprogram evaluation

Identifiers

PMID34212387
PMCPMC8522572

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.