Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36054374›Full record

ArticleActa anaesthesiologica Scandinavica2022

Causal inference for planning randomised critical care trials: Protocol for a scoping review.

Benjamin Skov Kaas-Hansen, Anders Granholm, Carl Thomas Anthon, Maj-Brit Nørregaard Kjaer, Praleene Sivapalan, Mathias Maagaard, Olav Lilleholt Schjørring, Steen Kåre Fagerberg, Karen Louise Ellekjaer, Jesper Mølgaard and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

13 authors.

Benjamin Skov Kaas-HansenDepartment of Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-1023-0371
Anders GranholmDepartment of Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-5799-7655
Carl Thomas AnthonDepartment of Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-7740-700X
Maj-Brit Nørregaard KjaerDepartment of Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-6536-0504
Praleene SivapalanDepartment of Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-0442-0032
Mathias MaagaardDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Centre for Anaesthesiological Research, Zealand University Hospital Køge, Køge, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-9037-7295
Olav Lilleholt SchjørringDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-7749-6003
Steen Kåre FagerbergDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-5846-0155
Karen Louise EllekjaerDepartment of Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-9724-9504
Jesper MølgaardDepartment of Anesthesiology, Centre for Cancer and Organ Dysfunction, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-2062-9570
Claus Thorn EkstrømSection for Biostatistics, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-1191-373X
Morten Hylander MøllerDepartment of Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-6378-9673
Anders PernerDepartment of Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-4668-0123

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRandomised clinical trials in critical care are prone to inconclusiveness owing, in part, to undue optimism about effect sizes and suboptimal accounting for heterogeneous treatment effects. Planned predictive enrichment based on secondary critical care data (often very rich with respect to both data types and temporal granularity) and causal inference methods may help overcome these challenges, but no overview exists about their use to this end.

methodsWe will conduct a scoping review to assess the extent and nature of the use of causal inference from secondary data for planned predictive enrichment of randomised clinical trials in critical care. We will systematically search 10 general and specialty journals for reports published on or after 1 January 2018, of randomised clinical trials enrolling adult critically ill patients. We will collect trial metadata (e.g., recruitment period and phase) and, when available, information pertaining to the focus of the review (predictive enrichment based on causal inference estimates from secondary data): causal inference methods, estimation techniques and software used; types of patient populations; data provenance, types and models; and the availability of the data (public or not). The results will be reported in a descriptive manner. DISCUSSION: The outlined scoping review aims to assess the use of causal inference methods and secondary data for planned predictive enrichment in randomised critical care trials. This will help guide methodological improvements to increase the utility, and facilitate the use, of causal inference estimates when planning such trials in the future.

Indexed as

Critical CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicCausalityHumansScoping Reviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID36054374
PMCPMC9826202

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.