Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35713577›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of epidemiology2022

Reflection on modern methods: constructing directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) with domain experts for health services research.

Daniela Rodrigues, Noemi Kreif, Anna Lawrence-Jones, Mauricio Barahona, Erik Mayer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of epidemiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Beyond the patient: how providers perceive and experience non-medical barriers in gastrointestinal cancer care.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Machine Learning Algorithms to Estimate Propensity Scores in Health Policy Evaluation: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Causal discovery and epidemiology: a potential for synergy.American journal of epidemiology · 2024
    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

5 authors.

Daniela RodriguesNIHR Imperial Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5791-5573
Noemi KreifCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9008-5690
Anna Lawrence-JonesNIHR Imperial Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7975-1346
Mauricio BarahonaCentre for Mathematics of Precision Healthcare, Department of Mathematics, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1089-5675
Erik MayerNIHR Imperial Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5509-4580

Funding

NRSA Training CoreTL1TR002016 · NCATS · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV HERSHEY MED CTR · PI THOMAS, GAIL D. · 2016 to 2025
$3.4M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) are a useful tool to represent, in a graphical format, researchers' assumptions about the causal structure among variables while providing a rationale for the choice of confounding variables to adjust for. With origins in the field of probabilistic graphical modelling, DAGs are yet to be widely adopted in applied health research, where causal assumptions are frequently made for the purpose of evaluating health services initiatives. In this context, there is still limited practical guidance on how to construct and use DAGs. Some progress has recently been made in terms of building DAGs based on studies from the literature, but an area that has received less attention is how to create DAGs from information provided by domain experts, an approach of particular importance when there is limited published information about the intervention under study. This approach offers the opportunity for findings to be more robust and relevant to patients, carers and the public, and more likely to inform policy and clinical practice. This article draws lessons from a stakeholder workshop involving patients, health care professionals, researchers, commissioners and representatives from industry, whose objective was to draw DAGs for a complex intervention-online consultation, i.e. written exchange between the patient and health care professional using an online system-in the context of the English National Health Service. We provide some initial, practical guidance to those interested in engaging with domain experts to develop DAGs.

Indexed as

Health Services ResearchState MedicineCausalityConfounding Factors, EpidemiologicData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansCausal inferencedirected acyclic graphshealth services researchpolicy evaluationpotential outcomes

Identifiers

PMID35713577
PMCPMC9365627

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.