ReviewInternational journal of epidemiology2025
Inconsistent consistency: evaluating the well-defined intervention assumption in applied epidemiological research.
Review in International journal of epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Negatives about positivity and consistency as conditions for causal inference.American journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Toward New Directions in Human Biology: A Roadmap for Anthropological Causal Inference With Observational Data.American journal of human biology : the official journal of the Human Biology Council · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccording to textbook guidance, satisfying the well-defined intervention assumption is key for estimating causal effects. However, no studies have systematically evaluated how the assumption is addressed in research. Thus, we reviewed how researchers using g-methods or targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE) interpreted and addressed the well-defined intervention assumption in epidemiological studies.
methodsWe reviewed observational epidemiological studies that used g-methods or TMLE, were published from 2000-21 in epidemiology journals with the six highest 2020 impact factors and met additional criteria. Among other factors, reviewers assessed if authors of included studies aimed to estimate the effects of hypothetical interventions. Then, among such studies, reviewers assessed whether authors discussed key causal-inference assumptions (e.g. consistency or treatment variation irrelevance), how they interpreted their findings and if they specified well-defined interventions.
resultsJust 20% (29/146) of studies aimed to estimate the effects of hypothetical interventions. Of such intervention-effect studies, almost none (1/29) stated 'how' the exposure would be intervened upon; among those that did not state a 'how', the 'how' mattered for consistency (i.e., for treatment variation irrelevance) in 64% of studies (18/28). Moreover, whereas 79% (23/29) of intervention-effect studies mentioned consistency, just 45% (13/29) interpreted findings as corresponding to the effects of hypothetical interventions. Finally, reviewers determined that just 38% (11/29) of intervention-effect studies had well-defined interventions.
conclusionsWe found substantial deviations between guidelines regarding meeting the well-defined intervention assumption and researchers' application of the guidelines, with authors of intervention-effect studies rarely critically examining the assumption's validity, let alone specifying well-defined interventions.
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.