Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38012221›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2023

Causal inference using observational intensive care unit data: a scoping review and recommendations for future practice.

J M Smit, J H Krijthe, W M R Kant, J A Labrecque, M Komorowski, D A M P J Gommers, J van Bommel, M J T Reinders, M E van Genderen

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Protocol for a multicentre target trial emulation comparing ketamine and propofol in critically ill adults undergoing emergency intubation.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Causal clarity in statistical software.International journal of epidemiology · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

9 authors.

J M SmitDepartment of Intensive Care, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. j.smit@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3716-1863
J H KrijthePattern Recognition & Bioinformatics group, EEMCS, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3435-6358
W M R KantData Science group, Institute for Computing and Information Sciences, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-0411-2187
J A LabrecqueDepartment of Epidemiology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
M KomorowskiDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
D A M P J GommersDepartment of Intensive Care, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
J van BommelDepartment of Intensive Care, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
M J T ReindersPattern Recognition & Bioinformatics group, EEMCS, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1148-1562
M E van GenderenDepartment of Intensive Care, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5668-3435

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This scoping review focuses on the essential role of models for causal inference in shaping actionable artificial intelligence (AI) designed to aid clinicians in decision-making. The objective was to identify and evaluate the reporting quality of studies introducing models for causal inference in intensive care units (ICUs), and to provide recommendations to improve the future landscape of research practices in this domain. To achieve this, we searched various databases including Embase, MEDLINE ALL, Web of Science Core Collection, Google Scholar, medRxiv, bioRxiv, arXiv, and the ACM Digital Library. Studies involving models for causal inference addressing time-varying treatments in the adult ICU were reviewed. Data extraction encompassed the study settings and methodologies applied. Furthermore, we assessed reporting quality of target trial components (i.e., eligibility criteria, treatment strategies, follow-up period, outcome, and analysis plan) and main causal assumptions (i.e., conditional exchangeability, positivity, and consistency). Among the 2184 titles screened, 79 studies met the inclusion criteria. The methodologies used were G methods (61%) and reinforcement learning methods (39%). Studies considered both static (51%) and dynamic treatment regimes (49%). Only 30 (38%) of the studies reported all five target trial components, and only seven (9%) studies mentioned all three causal assumptions. To achieve actionable AI in the ICU, we advocate careful consideration of the causal question of interest, describing this research question as a target trial emulation, usage of appropriate causal inference methods, and acknowledgement (and examination of potential violations of) the causal assumptions.

Identifiers

PMID38012221
PMCPMC10682453

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.