Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39402954›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of epidemiology2024

Staggered interventions with no control groups.

Brice Batomen, Tarik Benmarhnia

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

2 authors.

Brice BatomenDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5772-120X
Tarik BenmarhniaScripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.

Funding

Banting DiscoveryBanting Research Foundation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The limitations of the two-way fixed effects for the impact evaluation of interventions that occur at different times for each group have meant that 'staggered interventions' have been highlighted in recent years in the econometric literature and, more recently, in epidemiology. Although many alternative strategies (such as staggered difference-in-differences) have been proposed, the focus has predominantly been on scenarios in which one or more control groups are available. However, control groups are often unavailable, due to limitations in the available data or because all units eventually receive the intervention. In this context, interrupted time series (ITS) designs can constitute an appropriate alternative. The extent to which common model specifications for ITS analyses are limited in the case of staggered interventions remains an underexplored area in the methodological literature. In this work, we aim to demonstrate that standard ITS model specifications typically yield biased results for staggered interventions and we propose alternative model specifications that were inspired by recent developments in the difference-in-differences literature to propose adapted analytical strategies.

Indexed as

Interrupted Time Series AnalysisControl GroupsHumansModels, StatisticalResearch Designinjurylongitudinal analysesquasi-experimental designsStaggered interventionstime series

Identifiers

PMID39402954
PMCPMC11474002

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.