Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35756161›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Statistical Association2021

Prediction Intervals for Synthetic Control Methods.

Matias D Cattaneo, Yingjie Feng, Rocio Titiunik

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Statistical Association, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Imperfect Synthetic Controls.Journal of applied econometrics (Chichester, England) · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Distributional conformal prediction.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021
    Article
  12. 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

3 authors.

Matias D CattaneoDepartment of Operations Research and Financial Engineering, Princeton University.
Yingjie FengSchool of Economics and Management, Tsinghua University.
Rocio TitiunikDepartment of Politics, Princeton University.

Funding

Statistical Methods for Ultrahigh-dimensional Biomedical DataR01GM072611 · NIGMS · PRINCETON UNIVERSITY · PI CATTANEO, MATIAS DAMIAN · 2006 to 2021
$4.2M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM072611
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Uncertainty quantification is a fundamental problem in the analysis and interpretation of synthetic control (SC) methods. We develop conditional prediction intervals in the SC framework, and provide conditions under which these intervals offer finite-sample probability guarantees. Our method allows for covariate adjustment and non-stationary data. The construction begins by noting that the statistical uncertainty of the SC prediction is governed by two distinct sources of randomness: one coming from the construction of the (likely misspecified) SC weights in the pre-treatment period, and the other coming from the unobservable stochastic error in the post-treatment period when the treatment effect is analyzed. Accordingly, our proposed prediction intervals are constructed taking into account both sources of randomness. For implementation, we propose a simulation-based approach along with finite-sample-based probability bound arguments, naturally leading to principled sensitivity analysis methods. We illustrate the numerical performance of our methods using empirical applications and a small simulation study. Python, R and Stata software packages implementing our methodology are available.

Indexed as

causal inferencenon-asymptotic inferenceprediction intervalssynthetic controls

Identifiers

PMID35756161
PMCPMC9231822

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.