Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37006894›Full record

ReviewEcology and evolution2023

Reducing bias in experimental ecology through directed acyclic graphs.

Suchinta Arif, Melanie Duc Bo Massey

Full text readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ecology and evolution, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

2 authors.

Suchinta ArifDepartment of Biology Dalhousie University 1355 Oxford Street Halifax Nova Scotia B3H 4R2 Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8381-3071
Melanie Duc Bo MasseyDepartment of Biology Dalhousie University 1355 Oxford Street Halifax Nova Scotia B3H 4R2 Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ecologists often rely on randomized control trials (RCTs) to quantify causal relationships in nature. Many of our foundational insights of ecological phenomena can be traced back to well-designed experiments, and RCTs continue to provide valuable insights today. Although RCTs are often regarded as the "gold standard" for causal inference, it is important to recognize that they too rely on a set of causal assumptions that must be justified and met by the researcher to draw valid causal conclusions. We use key ecological examples to show how biases such as confounding, overcontrol, and collider bias can occur in experimental setups. In tandem, we highlight how such biases can be removed through the application of the structural causal model (SCM) framework. The SCM framework visualizes the causal structure of a system or process under study using directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) and subsequently applies a set of graphical rules to remove bias from both observational and experimental data. We show how DAGs can be applied across ecological experimental studies to ensure proper study design and statistical analysis, leading to more accurate causal estimates drawn from experimental data. Although causal conclusions drawn from RCTs are often taken at face value, ecologists are increasingly becoming aware that experimental approaches must be carefully designed and analyzed to avoid potential biases. By applying DAGs as a visual and conceptual tool, experimental ecologists can increasingly meet the causal assumptions required for valid causal inference.

Indexed as

causal inferencecollider biasconfounding biasdirected acyclic graphs (DAGs)external validityovercontrol biasrandomized control trials (RCTs)

Identifiers

PMID37006894
PMCPMC10050842

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read12
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.