ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025
Comparing causal inference methods for point exposures with missing confounders: a simulation study.
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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
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
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.