Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39445353›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2025

Causal inference in multi-cohort studies using the target trial framework to identify and minimize sources of bias.

Marnie Downes, Meredith O'Connor, Craig A Olsson, David Burgner, Sharon Goldfeld, Elizabeth A Spry, George Patton, Margarita Moreno-Betancur

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Observational
  5. 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 · 2026
    Article
  6. Observational
  7. 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

8 authors.

Marnie DownesDepartment of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, 50 Flemington Road, Parkville, Victoria, 3052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0677-2517
Meredith O'ConnorDepartment of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, 50 Flemington Road, Parkville, Victoria, 3052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8787-7352
Craig A OlssonDepartment of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, 50 Flemington Road, Parkville, Victoria, 3052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5927-2014
David BurgnerDepartment of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, 50 Flemington Road, Parkville, Victoria, 3052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8304-4302
Sharon GoldfeldMurdoch Children's Research Institute, 50 Flemington Road, Parkville, Victoria, 3052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6520-7094
Elizabeth A SpryDepartment of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, 50 Flemington Road, Parkville, Victoria, 3052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2837-3514
George PattonDepartment of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, 50 Flemington Road, Parkville, Victoria, 3052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5039-8326
Margarita Moreno-BetancurDepartment of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, 50 Flemington Road, Parkville, Victoria, 3052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8818-3125

Funding

Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) 2009572Australian NHMRC APP1175744Royal Children's Hospital Foundation #2018-984D
6 · The paper itself

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

CausalityBiasCohort StudiesData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansLongitudinal StudiesResearch Designbiascausal inferencecohort studydata poolingmeta-analysismulti-cohortreplicationtarget trial

Identifiers

PMID39445353
PMCPMC12409135

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.