Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38835899›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2024

What question are we trying to answer? Embracing causal inference.

Jan M Sargeant, Annette M O'Connor, David G Renter, Audrey Ruple

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 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
–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. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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.

Jan M SargeantDepartment of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.
Annette M O'ConnorDepartment of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States.
David G RenterCenter for Outcomes Research and Epidemiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, United States.
Audrey RupleDepartment of Population Health Sciences, VA-MD College of Veterinary Medicine, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study summarizes a presentation at the symposium for the Calvin Schwabe Award for Lifetime Achievement in Veterinary Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, which was awarded to the first author. As epidemiologists, we are taught that "correlation does not imply causation." While true, identifying causes is a key objective for much of the research that we conduct. There is empirical evidence that veterinary epidemiologists are conducting observational research with the intent to identify causes; many studies include control for confounding variables, and causal language is often used when interpreting study results. Frameworks for studying causes include the articulation of specific hypotheses to be tested, approaches for the selection of variables, methods for statistical estimation of the relationship between the exposure and the outcome, and interpretation of that relationship as causal. When comparing observational studies in veterinary populations to those conducted in human populations, the application of each of these steps differs substantially. The

Indexed as

causationconfoundingobservational studiesvariable selectionveterinary

Identifiers

PMID38835899
PMCPMC11149352

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.