Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41023827›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025

Comparing causal inference methods for point exposures with missing confounders: a simulation study.

Luke Benz, Alexander W Levis, Sebastien Haneuse

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 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

3 authors.

Luke BenzDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. lukebenz@g.harvard.edu.
Alexander W LevisDepartment of Statistics & Data Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Sebastien HaneuseDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Funding

Robust methods for missing data in electronic health records-based studiesR01DK128150 · NIDDK · HARVARD UNIVERSITY D/B/A HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI HANEUSE, SEBASTIEN · 2021 to 2024
$2.1M
NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK128150NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK128150-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Causal inference methods based on electronic health record (EHR) databases must simultaneously handle confounding and missing data. In practice, when faced with partially missing confounders, analysts may proceed by first imputing missing data and subsequently using outcome regression or inverse-probability weighting (IPW) to address confounding. However, little is known about the theoretical performance of such reasonable, but ad hoc methods. Though vast literature exists on each of these two challenges separately, relatively few works attempt to address missing data and confounding in a formal manner simultaneously. In a recent paper Levis et al. (Can J Stat e11832, 2024) outlined a robust framework for tackling these problems together under certain identifying conditions, and introduced a pair of estimators for the average treatment effect (ATE), one of which is non-parametric efficient. In this work we present a series of simulations, motivated by a published EHR based study (Arterburn et al., Ann Surg 274:e1269-e1276, 2020) of the long-term effects of bariatric surgery on weight outcomes, to investigate these new estimators and compare them to existing ad hoc methods. While methods based on ad hoc combinations of imputation and confounding adjustment perform well in certain scenarios, no single estimator is uniformly best. We conclude with recommendations for good practice in the face of partially missing confounders.

Indexed as

CausalityComputer SimulationConfounding Factors, EpidemiologicData Interpretation, StatisticalElectronic Health RecordsHumansModels, StatisticalCausal inferenceElectronic health recordsMissing data

Identifiers

PMID41023827
PMCPMC12482880

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.