Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39934432›Full record

ReviewActa neurochirurgica2025

Causal inference from observational data in neurosurgical studies: a mini-review and tutorial.

Mingxuan Liu, Xinru Wang, Jin Wee Lee, Bibhas Chakraborty, Nan Liu, Victor Volovici

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Acta neurochirurgica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Mingxuan Liu *Center for Quantitative Medicine, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.
Xinru Wang *Center for Quantitative Medicine, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.
Jin Wee LeeCenter for Quantitative Medicine, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.
Bibhas ChakrabortyCenter for Quantitative Medicine, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.
Nan Liu *Center for Quantitative Medicine, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.
Victor Volovici *Department of Neurosurgery, Erasmus MC Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. v.volovici@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-5798-5360

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEstablishing a causation relationship between treatments and patient outcomes is of essential importance for researchers to guide clinical decision-making with rigorous scientific evidence. Despite the fact that randomized controlled trials are widely regarded as the gold standard for identifying causal relationships, they are not without its generalizability and ethical constraints. Observational studies employing causal inference methods have emerged as a valuable alternative to exploring causal relationships.

methodsIn this tutorial, we provide a succinct yet insightful guide about identifying causal relationships using observational studies, with a specific emphasis on research in the field of neurosurgery.

resultsWe first emphasize the importance of clearly defining causal questions and conceptualizing target trial emulation. The limitations of the classic causation framework proposed by Bradford Hill are then discussed. Following this, we introduce one of the modern frameworks of causal inference, which centers around the potential outcome framework and directed acyclic graphs. We present the obstacles presented by confounding and selection bias when attempting to establish causal relationships with observational data within this framework.

conclusionTo provide a comprehensive overview, we present a summary of efficient causal inference methods that can address these challenges, along with a simulation example to illustrate these techniques.

Indexed as

CausalityNeurosurgeryObservational Studies as TopicHumansMediation AnalysisCausal inferenceEpidemiologyNeurosurgical research

Identifiers

PMID39934432
PMCPMC11813971

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.