ArticleEpidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)2026
Causal Identification Conditions for the Effect of Treatment in the Treated: Illustration Using the Northwest Germany Stroke Registry.
Article in Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA set of conditions sufficient to identify the average treatment effect (ATE) in observational data includes no measurement error, causal consistency, and conditional mean exchangeability with positivity. The average treatment effect in the treated (ATT) is identified under a subset of these conditions, specifically relaxing the symmetry of conditional exchangeability with positivity.
methodsWe reanalyzed data from the Northwest Germany Stroke Registry (2020-2021) to estimate the effect of tissue-type plasminogen activator (tPA) on inhospital mortality. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting for the ATE and standardized mortality ratio (SMR) weighting for the ATT. We also conducted 5000 simulations of 6000 patients, varying the prevalence of treatment indication. We generated homogeneous and heterogeneous treatment effects under two scenarios: (1) positivity holds for treated and untreated groups and (2) positivity only holds for the treated.
resultsAmong 6000 patients, 20% received tPA, and 5% died. The inverse probability of treatment weighting risk ratio (ATE) was 1.70 (95% CI: 0.80, 3.64), while the SMR-weighted risk ratio (ATT) was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.59, 1.14). In simulations, ATT estimates of the risk ratio remained unbiased when we violated positivity for the untreated. However, ATE estimates showed increasing log-scale bias with increased nonpositivity, ranging from 0.2 to 1.1 for homogeneous effects and 0.2 to 0.9 for heterogeneous effects.
conclusionsWhile ATE estimates suggested harm from tPA, ATT estimates suggest a protective effect. Simulations show that when one-sided positivity violations exist, epidemiologists can leverage weaker identification conditions to consistently estimate the ATT, even when estimates of the ATE are biased.
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.