ReviewActa neurochirurgica2025
Causal inference from observational data in neurosurgical studies: a mini-review and tutorial.
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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.