ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2026
Covariate adjustment in LGBTQ+ health disparities research: aligning methods with assumptions.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2026. 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.
- Post-traumatic stress disorder and adverse pregnancy outcomes: sexual orientation disparities in a prospective cohort study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Article
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
Abstract
In 2016, the National Institutes of Health designated LGBTQ+ individuals (ie, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and all sexual and gender minorities) as a health disparities population. The growing interest in studying the health of LGBTQ+ populations merits revisiting the methodological approaches researchers employ. We elucidate how researchers can identify appropriate adjustment sets for causal questions using directed acyclic graphs (DAGs). To illustrate these points, we simulated a simplified example using pregnancy loss as the outcome wherein we generate 1000 datasets with a sample size of 10 000 individuals. We motivate why covariates that are commonly used in LGBTQ+ health disparities research (eg, use of medically assisted reproduction) are mediators, not confounders, and how adjusting for these variables in causal research can induce bias by blocking part of the indirect effect of exposure on the outcome. Next, we illustrate the complexity of mediation analyses with social exposures due to mediator-outcome confounding induced by exposure and compare potential approaches. Then we demonstrate how collider stratification bias can arise from our sample recruitment and selection. Finally, we demonstrate how incorporating heterosexism (ie, stigma and discrimination) as an unobserved node in our DAG can guide decision-making on appropriate adjustment sets. This article is part of a Special Collection on Methods in Social Epidemiology.
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.