ArticleStatistical methods in medical research2025
Center-specific causal inference with multicenter trials-Interpreting trial evidence in the context of each participating center.
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. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using methods to extend inferences to specific target populations to improve the precision of subgroup analyses.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2025Trial
- CausalMetaR: An R package for performing causally interpretable meta-analyses.Research synthesis methods · 2025Review
- Standardizing to specific target populations in distributed networks and multisite pharmacoepidemiologic studies.American journal of epidemiology · 2024Article
- Invited Commentary: Combining Information to Answer Epidemiologic Questions About a Target Population.American journal of epidemiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In multicenter randomized trials, when effect modifiers have a different distribution across centers, comparisons between treatment groups that average (standardize) effects over centers may not apply to any of the populations underlying the individual centers. In the presence of such heterogeneity, interpreting the evidence produced by a multicenter trial in the context of the local population underlying each center may be necessary. Here, we identify center-specific effects under conditions that are largely supported by the study design and are weaker than those underlying popular methods for the analysis of multicenter studies, in the presence of associations between center membership and the outcome ("center-outcome associations" conditional on baseline covariates and treatment). We then consider an additional testable condition of "no center-outcome associations," given baseline covariates and treatment. We propose methods for estimating center-specific average treatment effects, when center-outcome associations are present and when they are absent. When center-outcome associations are absent, we discuss how the proposed methods are often more efficient and make weaker conditions than related transportability methods applied to multicenter trials. We evaluate the performance of the methods in a simulation study and illustrate their implementation using data from the Hepatitis C Antiviral Long-Term Treatment Against Cirrhosis trial.
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.