Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41059256›Full record

ArticleStatistical science : a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics2024

Causal Inference Methods for Combining Randomized Trials and Observational Studies: A Review.

Bénédicte Colnet, Imke Mayer, Guanhua Chen, Awa Dieng, Ruohong Li, Gaël Varoquaux, Jean-Philippe Vert, Julie Josse, Shu Yang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistical science : a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing 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

53 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Representation Retrieval Learning for Heterogeneous Data Integration.Journal of the American Statistical Association · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Precision Mental Health: Predicting Heterogeneous Treatment Effects for Depression through Data Integration.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C, Applied statistics · 2025
    Article
  19. Data Fusion for Partial Identification of Causal Effects.Advances in neural information processing systems · 2025
    Article
  20. Beyond reweighting: On the predictive role of covariate shift in effect generalization.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
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

9 authors.

Bénédicte ColnetINRIA Saclay, Palaiseau, France.
Imke MayerOwkin, London, UK.
Guanhua ChenDepartment of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53726, USA.
Awa DiengGoogle DeepMind, Montreal, Canada.
Ruohong LiMicrosoft, Kirkland, WA 98033, USA.
Gaël VaroquauxINRIA Saclay, Paries, France.
Jean-Philippe VertOwkin, Paris, France.
Julie JosseUniversity of Montpellier, France.
Shu YangDepartment of Statistics, North Carolina State University, 2311 Stinson Drive, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA.

Funding

Transforming Clinical Trials for Elderly and Rare Cancers through Intelligent and Robust Information BorrowingR01AG066883 · NIA · NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY RALEIGH · PI Xiaofei Wang, Shu Yang · 2020 to 2026
$2.0M
FDA HHS U01 FD007934NIA NIH HHS R01 AG066883
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With increasing data availability, causal effects can be evaluated across different data sets, both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. RCTs isolate the effect of the treatment from that of unwanted (confounding) co-occurring effects but they may suffer from unrepresentativeness, and thus lack external validity. On the other hand, large observational samples are often more representative of the target population but can conflate confounding effects with the treatment of interest. In this paper, we review the growing literature on methods for causal inference on combined RCTs and observational studies, striving for the best of both worlds. We first discuss identification and estimation methods that improve generalizability of RCTs using the representativeness of observational data. Classical estimators include weighting, difference between conditional outcome models and doubly robust estimators. We then discuss methods that combine RCTs and observational data to either ensure unconfoundedness of the observational analysis or to improve (conditional) average treatment effect estimation. We also connect and contrast works developed in both the potential outcomes literature and the structural causal model literature. Finally, we compare the main methods using a simulation study and real world data to analyze the effect of tranexamic acid on the mortality rate in major trauma patients. A review of available codes and new implementations is also provided.

Indexed as

Causal effect generalizationdata integrationdouble robustnessheterogeneous dataS-admissibilitytransportability

Identifiers

PMID41059256
PMCPMC12499922

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.