ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2026
Causal inference methods for systematic reviews.
Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Systematic reviews are frequently used to ask and answer causal questions, and decisions made throughout the review process can introduce bias because of the causal relationships between variables of interest, even when the question being asked is not itself causal. However, current systematic review best practices do not consider most of these impacts. The author presents an introduction to the basic principles and terminology of causal inference as apply to systematic reviews and discusses how some simple causal inference concepts can be used to create clearer and less biased research questions, search strategies, eligibility criteria, and data analysis. By taking into account confounder and collider bias, and by paying careful attention to the differences in assumptions made in intervention- and non-intervention-based reviews, health science librarians can aid systematic review teams in minimizing the risk of bias, and in appropriately analyzing and assessing that risk.
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.