Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35880998›Full record

ArticleStatistical communications in infectious diseases2021

Evaluating the power of the causal impact method in observational studies of HCV treatment as prevention.

Pantelis Samartsidis, Natasha N Martin, Victor De Gruttola, Frank De Vocht, Sharon Hutchinson, Judith J Lok, Amy Puenpatom, Rui Wang, Matthew Hickman, Daniela De Angelis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistical communications in infectious diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

10 authors.

Pantelis SamartsidisMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Natasha N MartinUniversity of California San Diego, San Diego, USA.
Victor De GruttolaHarvard University, Cambridge, USA.
Frank De VochtPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Sharon HutchinsonGlasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Judith J LokDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, Boston University, Boston, USA.
Amy PuenpatomMerck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA.
Rui WangDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.
Matthew HickmanPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Daniela De AngelisMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/11
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: The causal impact method (CIM) was recently introduced for evaluation of binary interventions using observational time-series data. The CIM is appealing for practical use as it can adjust for temporal trends and account for the potential of unobserved confounding. However, the method was initially developed for applications involving large datasets and hence its potential in small epidemiological studies is still unclear. Further, the effects that measurement error can have on the performance of the CIM have not been studied yet. The objective of this work is to investigate both of these open problems. Methods: Motivated by an existing dataset of HCV surveillance in the UK, we perform simulation experiments to investigate the effect of several characteristics of the data on the performance of the CIM. Further, we quantify the effects of measurement error on the performance of the CIM and extend the method to deal with this problem. Results: We identify multiple characteristics of the data that affect the ability of the CIM to detect an intervention effect including the length of time-series, the variability of the outcome and the degree of correlation between the outcome of the treated unit and the outcomes of controls. We show that measurement error can introduce biases in the estimated intervention effects and heavily reduce the power of the CIM. Using an extended CIM, some of these adverse effects can be mitigated. Conclusions: The CIM can provide satisfactory power in public health interventions. The method may provide misleading results in the presence of measurement error.

Indexed as

causal impactcausal inferenceHCVmeasurement error

Identifiers

PMID35880998
PMCPMC9204771

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.