ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2025
Causal inference in multi-cohort studies using the target trial framework to identify and minimize sources of bias.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Immersive physical and occupational therapy in the neonatal intensive care unit: a non-randomized comparative cohort trial protocol.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2026Article
- Income Volatility During Early to Mid-adulthood and 10-year Memory Decline in a Longitudinal Synthetic Cohort.Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026Article
- The Ideal Trial: Defining Causal Estimands that Balance Relevance and Feasibility in Target Trial Emulations and Actual Randomized Trials.Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026Review
- Geriatric Syndromes and Mortality Among Hospitalized Older Adults.JAMA network open · 2026Observational
- Hypertension control within the HEARTS program of south-west Trinidad: a longitudinal mixed-effects analysis.Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2026Article
- Amphetamine use and mental health difficulties across adolescence and young adulthood: An integrative data analysis of four Australasian cohort studies.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2025Observational
- Overcoming Data Gaps in Life Course Epidemiology by Matching Across Cohorts.Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Longitudinal cohort studies, which follow a group of individuals over time, provide the opportunity to examine the causal effects of complex exposures on long-term health outcomes. Utilizing data from multiple cohorts has the potential to add further benefit by improving the precision of estimates through data pooling and by allowing examination of effect heterogeneity through replication of analyses across cohorts. However, the interpretation of findings can be complicated by biases that may be compounded when pooling data or contribute to discrepant findings when analyses are replicated. The "target trial" is a powerful tool for guiding causal inference in single-cohort studies. Here we extend this conceptual framework to address the specific challenges that can arise in the multi-cohort setting. By representing a clear definition of the target estimand, the target trial provides a central point of reference against which biases arising in each cohort and from data pooling can be systematically assessed. Consequently, analyses can be designed to reduce these biases and the resulting findings appropriately interpreted in light of potential remaining biases. We use a case study to demonstrate the framework and its potential to strengthen causal inference in multi-cohort studies through improved analysis design and clarity in the interpretation of findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.