ArticleFrontiers in epidemiology2026
Evidence-based directed acyclic graphs for perinatal pharmacoepidemiologic studies in rheumatology: a structured approach for development and implementation in administrative health data.
Article in Frontiers in epidemiology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Evidence-based Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs) are effective tools to comprehensively visualize complex causal and biasing pathways in pharmacoepidemiologic research in rheumatology. This paper outlines the process of developing and implementing a DAG, using a cohort study evaluating the impact of targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (tsDMARDs) on congenital anomalies as a case example. We include a discussion of how factors would be operationalized into variables in administrative data within the case example. Methods: DAG Development involved: 1) identifying exposure and outcome, 2) identifying factors affecting the exposure, 3) identifying factors affecting the outcome, 4) identifying factors affecting both the exposure Results: The final DAG for our case example on evaluating the association between tsDMARDs and congenital anomalies consisted of 21 nodes (points in the diagram representing factors such as exposures, outcomes, confounders, or mediators): 1 affecting the exposure, 12 affecting the outcome, 7 on the biasing pathways, and 1 mediator (maternal infection) on the exposure-outcome pathway. One minimally sufficient adjustment set was identified to inform confounder adjustment in a multivariable model, consisting of: concomitant conventional synthetic DMARDs, rheumatic disease activity, and maternal demographics (i.e., age, place of residence, race/ethnicity). Implications for implementing this DAG in a study using administrative health data include comprehensively revealing confounders to be adjusted for. Conclusions: Our systematic approach to developing a DAG is particularly valuable for improving study designs in the growing field of perinatal pharmacoepidemiology in rheumatology, where there is a critical need for robust perinatal data on novel arthritis medications.
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.