Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41026684›Full record

ArticleStatistical methods in medical research2025

Investigations of sharp bounds for causal effects under selection bias.

Stina Zetterstrom, Arvid Sjölander, Ingeborg Waernbaum

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistical methods in medical research, 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.

Stina ZetterstromDepartment of Statistics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-0730-9425
Arvid SjölanderDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ingeborg WaernbaumDepartment of Statistics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-4457-5311

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Selection bias is a common type of bias, and depending on the causal estimand of interest and the structure of the selection variable, it can be a threat to both external and internal validity. One way to quantify the maximum magnitude of potential selection bias is to calculate bounds for the causal estimand. Here, we consider previously proposed bounds for selection bias, which require the specification of certain sensitivity parameters. First, we show that the sensitivity parameters are variation independent. Second, we show that the bounds are sharp under certain conditions. Furthermore, we derive improved bounds that are based on the same sensitivity parameters. Depending on the causal estimand, these bounds require additional information regarding the selection probabilities. We illustrate the improved bounds in an empirical example where the effect of breakfast eating on overweight is estimated. Lastly, the performance of the bounds are investigated in a numerical experiment for sharp and non-sharp cases.

Indexed as

CausalityHumansModels, StatisticalOverweightSelection BiasCausal inferenceinclusion criteriarisk differencerisk ratiosensitivity analysis

Identifiers

PMID41026684
PMCPMC12669388

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.