Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42477567›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026

Estimating treatment effects from non-overlapping cohorts with application to antimicrobial resistance.

Avi Baraz, Daniel Nevo, Amos Cahan, Tal Brosh-Nissimov, Michal Chowers, Uri Obolski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Avi BarazDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health, Gray Faculty of Medical & Health Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Daniel NevoDepartment of Statistics and Operations Research, Faculty of Exact Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Amos CahanInfectious Diseases Unit, Samson Assuta Ashdod University Hospital, Ashdod, Israel.
Tal Brosh-NissimovInfectious Diseases Unit, Samson Assuta Ashdod University Hospital, Ashdod, Israel.
Michal Chowers *Infectious Diseases Unit, Meir Medical Center, Kfar-Saba, Israel.
Uri Obolski *Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health, Gray Faculty of Medical & Health Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. uriobols@tauex.tau.ac.il.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7594-9745

Funding

Israel Science Foundation ISF 1286/21
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe positivity assumption, also known as overlap, is one of the key assumptions for causal inference. However, in certain observational studies it does not hold. This work is motivated by such a scenario, where the goal was to compare the effect of ceftriaxone versus cefuroxime treatment on subsequent 3rd generation cephalosporin resistance within one year post-treatment in Gram-negative bacteria among hospitalized patients. Our data consisted of electronic medical records from 24,969 patients hospitalized between 2015-2025 in two hospitals with distinct policies: one prescribed cefuroxime, while the other prescribed ceftriaxone. These prescription policies created two non-overlapping patient cohorts, as each hospital treated patients with either cefuroxime or ceftriaxone. We developed and applied a statistical framework that leverages additional data, for which positivity holds, and clinically driven assumptions, to identify the average treatment effect among these non-overlapping cohorts, without removing any observations.

methodsOur framework is based on a logistic regression model for the conditional expected bacterial resistance outcome, and it can be applied to any generalized linear model. The model is identifiable under a clinically driven assumption that the effect modification of the hospital on cefazolin equals that of cefuroxime and ceftriaxone, when compared to penicillins. We rely on cefazolin and penicillins being prescribed in both hospitals, and on penicillins inducing negligible resistance to 3rd generation cephalosporins. We also implemented inverse probability of censoring weighting for censored outcomes, and utilized aminoglycoside resistance as a negative control outcome to assess sufficient confounding adjustment.

resultsThe estimated average treatment effect, on the risk difference scale, of ceftriaxone compared to cefuroxime was 5.83% (95% CI: -2.06%, 13.39%). The conditional odds ratio for ceftriaxone compared to cefuroxime, adjusted for confounders, was 1.31 (95% CI: 0.91, 1.89). No evidence of unmeasured confounding was found using the negative control outcome falsification test.

conclusionsWe develop and apply a statistical framework applicable in settings of non-overlapping cohorts that violate the positivity assumption. Our framework allows identification of the average treatment effect thanks to parametric assumptions about the conditional expected outcome, additional data and clinically driven assumptions. The empirical findings, though not statistically significant, may point to a modest resistance increase with ceftriaxone compared to cefuroxime use; and suggest further research about the preferential use of cefuroxime is needed.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsCeftriaxoneCefuroximeDrug Resistance, BacterialGram-Negative BacteriaCohort StudiesElectronic Health RecordsHumansLogistic ModelsMicrobial Sensitivity TestsSecond Generation CephalosporinsThird Generation CephalosporinsTreatment OutcomeAnti-Bacterial AgentsCeftriaxoneCefuroximeSecond Generation CephalosporinsThird Generation CephalosporinsAntibiotic resistanceAntibiotic useCausal inferenceNon-overlapping cohortsViolation of positivity

Identifiers

PMID42477567
PMCPMC13670598

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.