Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38860706›Full record

ArticleEpidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)2024

Synthesizing Subject-matter Expertise for Variable Selection in Causal Effect Estimation: A Case Study.

Julia Debertin, Javier A Jurado Vélez, Laura Corlin, Bertha Hidalgo, Eleanor J Murray

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Julia DebertinFrom the Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA.
Javier A Jurado VélezHeersink School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.
Laura CorlinFrom the Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA.
Bertha HidalgoDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham Ryals School of Public Health, Birmingham, AL.
Eleanor J MurrayDepartment of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0003-0043-4901

Funding

Tufts BIRCWH ProgramK12HD092535 · NICHD · TUFTS UNIVERSITY BOSTON · PI FREUND, KAREN, JAFFE, IRIS Z · 2017 to 2023
$4.3M
NICHD NIH HHS K12 HD092535
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCausal graphs are an important tool for covariate selection but there is limited applied research on how best to create them. Here, we used data from the Coronary Drug Project trial to assess a range of approaches to directed acyclic graph (DAG) creation. We focused on the effect of adherence on mortality in the placebo arm, since the true causal effect is believed with a high degree of certainty.

methodsWe created DAGs for the effect of placebo adherence on mortality using different approaches for identifying variables and links to include or exclude. For each DAG, we identified minimal adjustment sets of covariates for estimating our causal effect of interest and applied these to analyses of the Coronary Drug Project data.

resultsWhen we used only baseline covariate values to estimate the cumulative effect of placebo adherence on mortality, all adjustment sets performed similarly. The specific choice of covariates had minimal effect on these (biased) point estimates, but including nonconfounding prognostic factors resulted in smaller variance estimates. When we additionally adjusted for time-varying covariates of adherence using inverse probability weighting, covariates identified from the DAG created by focusing on prognostic factors performed best.

conclusionTheoretical advice on covariate selection suggests that including prognostic factors that are not exposure predictors can reduce variance without increasing bias. In contrast, for exposure predictors that are not prognostic factors, inclusion may result in less bias control. Our results empirically confirm this advice. We recommend that hand-creating DAGs begin with the identification of all potential outcome prognostic factors.

Indexed as

CausalityData Interpretation, StatisticalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPlacebosRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicPlacebos

Identifiers

PMID38860706
PMCPMC11309331

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.