SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2026
Applications of causal and structural equation modeling in epidemiology: a systematic and critical review.
Synthesis 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.
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
backgroundStructural equation modeling (SEM) and causal modeling (CM) are powerful statistical approaches for identifying complex interrelationships among variables. However, their application in epidemiology remains limited and under-documented, especially in infectious disease research, which requires integrated analytical frameworks for effective control.
methodsTo examine how SEM and CM have been applied, their methodological characteristics, and reporting practices, a systematic and critical review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. The search covered studies published between 1987 and 2025 across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, Google Scholar, and the Directory of Open Access Journals. After rigorous screening, 458 articles were thoroughly evaluated.
resultsMost studies focused on neuropsychiatric (32.1%) and chronic (30.1%) conditions, with few addressing infectious diseases (24.0%), primarily malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV, particularly in low-income countries where context-specific evidence is urgently needed to inform targeted interventions. SEM studies predominantly used maximum likelihood estimation (57.7%) and large samples ([Formula: see text] observations in 85%) with CB-SEM remaining the dominant approach across all sample size categories. In contrast, CM studies showed substantial variability in sample sizes across approaches, ranging from fewer than 100 to over 200 observations (coefficient of variation [Formula: see text]), with no consistent sample size threshold across methods. Methodological reporting was often incomplete, notably regarding study design (17.4%), measurement validity (15.8%), and model fit criteria (5.2%), reducing transparency and reproducibility.
conclusionOverall, broader application of SEM and CM to infectious diseases, combined with improved methodological transparency, could substantially strengthen causal inference and guide evidence-based disease control strategies. Moreover, integrating longitudinal study designs would further enhance the robustness and interpretability of causal findings.
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.