ReviewBMC medical research methodology2025
Covariate selection strategies and estimands - a review of current practice of risk factor analysis from a causal perspective.
Review in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Time Well Spent? Time Use for Health Information Management Across Home Care Roles: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study in Finland.International journal of integrated careArticle
- Overcoming the Black Box Challenge: Building Trust in Artificial Intelligence Algorithms in Oncology.Technology in cancer research & treatmentReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In applied epidemiological studies, the term “risk factor” is used synonymously with both predictors and causal factors for disease, although causal aims of explanatory analyses are rarely stated explicitly. Consequently, the concepts of explaining and predicting are conflated in many risk factor analyses, where data-driven variable selection, not suitable for causal inference, is common. We review the current practice of evaluating risk factors with regression analysis in three medical journals, focusing on the definition of risk factors, covariate selection strategies, and interpretation of regression coefficients. In simulations, we compare common practices to a causal approach using a data learner that mimics data from a study investigating risk factors for COVID-19 severity among patients with Multiple Sclerosis. The implied meaning of the term’ risk factor’ varies across the reviewed articles, but many authors implicitly give a causal definition of the term. In the articles, logistic regression is the most frequently used model, from which the coefficients are taken as effect estimates of the risk factors under study. We identify three common covariate selection strategies: i) adjusting for a pre-specified set, ii) stepwise selection, and iii) univariable pre-filtering. The simulation study illustrates the limitations of the current practice compared to the estimation of a marginal causal odds ratio by highlighting the difference between the conditional odds ratio and the marginal odds ratio. When considering risk factors as causal factors, the effect of interest should be clearly defined, and variables should be selected based on the underlying causal structure.
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.