Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38629587›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2024

Variable selection when estimating effects in external target populations.

Michael Webster-Clark, Rachael K Ross, Alexander P Keil, Robert W Platt

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Redefining Representativeness of a Sample in Causal Terms.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Transporting: What Is It and How Do You Do It?Current epidemiology reports · 2025
    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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Michael Webster-ClarkDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, School of Population and Global Health, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 1G1, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8079-8504
Rachael K RossDepartment of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2049-6918
Alexander P KeilNational Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD 20850, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-0955-6107
Robert W PlattDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, School of Population and Global Health, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 1G1, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5981-8443
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USMcGill University · CANational Cancer Institute · US

Funding

Cancer Risk and Environmental ExposuresZIACP010125 · NCI · DIVISION OF CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY AND GENETICS · PI PURDUE, MARK · 2009 to 2025
$41.3M
Propensity scores and preventive drug use in the elderlyR01AG056479 · NIA · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Til Sturmer · 2017 to 2026
$5.0M
CIHR PJT-186279COVID-19 Immunity Task ForceNIA NIH HHS R01 AG056479US National Institutes of Health R01AG056479
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

External validity is an important part of epidemiologic research. To validly estimate effects in specific external target populations using a chosen effect measure (ie, "transport"), some methods require that one account for all effect measure modifiers (EMMs). However, little is known about how including other variables that are not EMMs (ie, non-EMMs) in adjustment sets affects estimates. Using simulations, we evaluated how inclusion of non-EMMs affected estimation of the transported risk difference (RD) by assessing the impacts of covariates that (1) differ (or not) between the trial and the target, (2) are associated with the outcome (or not), and (3) modify the RD (or not). We assessed variation and bias when covariates with each possible combination of these factors were used to transport RDs using outcome modeling or inverse odds weighting. Inclusion of variables that differed in distribution between the populations but were non-EMMs reduced precision, regardless of whether they were associated with the outcome. However, non-EMMs associated with selection did not amplify bias resulting from omission of necessary EMMs. Including all variables associated with the outcome may result in unnecessarily imprecise estimates when estimating treatment effects in external target populations.

Indexed as

BiasComputer SimulationHumansexternal validitygeneralizabilityodds weightsstandardizationtransportability

Identifiers

PMID38629587
PMCPMC11299018
OpenAlexW4394872301

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.