ArticleJournal of market access & health policy2024
A Causal Inference Approach to Mediation Analysis in Vitreomacular Traction: How Much Does Traction Resolution Mediate Functional Outcomes?
Article in Journal of market access & health policy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Modern mediation analysis techniques supplement the primary intention-to-treat analysis with the aim to shed light onto the treatment mechanism. We investigate to what extent the anatomic marker vitreomacular adhesion resolution (VMAR) mediates vision benefits, comparing ocriplasmin vs. a sham regimen. A causal mediation analysis is applied to randomized trial data including 218 participants with vitreomacular traction. Logistic regression models are used to estimate the total treatment effect (TTE) on binary outcomes. Outcomes, assessed at month 24, included visual acuity improvement (VA-I): ≥2-line increase in VA; visual function questionnaire improvement (VFQ-I): ≥5-point increase in the 25-item visual function questionnaire composite score (VFQ-25cs); visual function improvement (VF-I): defined as either a VA-I or a clinically meaningful improvement in the VFQ-25cs. Quantity of interest is the breakdown of TTE into an indirect (through VMAR) and direct effect to estimate the extent to which the TTE is transmitted through the mediating variable (VMAR) vs. other pathways. Causal effects are expressed as risk differences. Indirect effects for VFQ-I, VA-I, and VF-I are 5.7%, 11.8%, and 5.2%, respectively, representing the increase in the probability of a vision improvement if VMAR status were changed for each participant to the extent that it is affected by ocriplasmin. The direct effects are 8.3%, 12.1%, and 24.1% respectively, capturing the effect of treatment on the probability of a vision improvement if ocriplasmin left each participant's VMAR status unchanged. The relative treatment effect of ocriplasmin on the functional outcome VA-I is to a large extent the result of its effect on VMAR, while an improvement in the patient-reported outcomes VFQ-I or VF-I was only partially mediated by VMAR.
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.