Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36481283›Full record

ReviewThe Journal of arthroplasty2023

How to Distinguish Correlation From Causation in Orthopaedic Research.

Isabella Zaniletti, Dirk R Larson, David G Lewallen, Daniel J Berry, Hilal Maradit Kremers

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Journal of arthroplasty, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
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.

Isabella ZanilettiDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona.
Dirk R LarsonDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
David G LewallenDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Daniel J BerryDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Hilal Maradit KremersDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.

Funding

Resource CoreP30AR076312 · NIAMS · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI Daniel Berry · 2019 to 2026
$5.5M
NIAMS NIH HHS P30 AR076312
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Correlations in observational studies are commonly misinterpreted as causation. Although correlation is necessary to establish a causal relationship between two variables, correlations may also arise due to chance, reverse causality, or confounding. There are several methods available to orthopaedic researchers to determine whether the observed correlations are causal. These methods depend on the key components of the study including, but not limited to, study design and data availability on confounders. In this article, we illustrate the main concepts surrounding correlation and causation using intuitive real-world examples from the orthopaedic literature. Please visit the following https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WW7pFudZbHA&t=52s for a video that explains the highlights of the paper in practical terms.

Indexed as

OrthopedicsCausalityHumansResearch Designarthroplastycausationchanceconfoundingcorrelationorthopaedics

Identifiers

PMID36481283
PMCPMC10010939

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.