ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Identifying confounders and estimating the causal effect of antenatal care on age-specific childhood vaccination.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Immunization is an efficient and cost-effective public health program. It averts millions of child deaths per year. It is taken as one of the main interventions that can be used to achieve the third Sustainable Development Goal, which is to end preventable deaths of newborns and under-five children by 2030. The study was done with the aim of identifying appropriate confounder identification methods and examining confounders for the causal effect of a number of antenatal care visits on age-specific childhood vaccination. Methods: A family of generalized linear models with log link functions was used to model the covariate and the number of antenatal care association. A cumulative link model was used to model the number of antenatal care and covariate-age-specific childhood vaccination associations. AIC and BIC values were used to compare models. Significance testing methods and change in estimate methods were used to identify covariates that confound the effect of a number of antenatal care on age-specific childhood vaccinations. Result: A zero-inflated Poisson model was selected to model covariate-exposure association, and a proportional odds model with a log link was selected to model the outcome variable. Among significance testing methods, the common cause approach yielded smaller values of BIC and a smaller number of covariates. However, the likelihood ratio test showed no difference between the common cause and other approaches. A change in the estimate method is more conservative at a 10% cut point, which selects a smaller number of confounders. However, the significance testing method was better performed than the change in estimate method. Conclusion: The significance testing method with a
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.