Literature DB >> 31655945

Effect heterogeneity and variable selection for standardizing causal effects to a target population.

Anders Huitfeldt1,2, Sonja A Swanson3,4, Mats J Stensrud4,5, Etsuji Suzuki4,6.   

Abstract

The participants in randomized trials and other studies used for causal inference are often not representative of the populations seen by clinical decision-makers. To account for differences between populations, researchers may consider standardizing results to a target population. We discuss several different types of homogeneity conditions that are relevant for standardization: Homogeneity of effect measures, homogeneity of counterfactual outcome state transition parameters, and homogeneity of counterfactual distributions. Each of these conditions can be used to show that a particular standardization procedure will result in an unbiased estimate of the effect in the target population, given assumptions about the relevant scientific context. We compare and contrast the homogeneity conditions, in particular their implications for selection of covariates for standardization and their implications for how to compute the standardized causal effect in the target population. While some of the recently developed counterfactual approaches to generalizability rely upon homogeneity conditions that avoid many of the problems associated with traditional approaches, they often require adjustment for a large (and possibly unfeasible) set of covariates.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Effect heterogeneity; Effect measures; External validity; Generalizability; Methodology; Standardization

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31655945     DOI: 10.1007/s10654-019-00571-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0393-2990            Impact factor:   8.082


  30 in total

1.  A structural approach to selection bias.

Authors:  Miguel A Hernán; Sonia Hernández-Díaz; James M Robins
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 4.822

2.  Generalizability of relative risk estimates from a well-defined population to a general population.

Authors:  Motoki Iwasaki; Seiichiro Yamamoto; Tetsuya Otani; Manami Inoue; Tomoyuki Hanaoka; Tomotaka Sobue; Shoichiro Tsugane
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 8.082

3.  The comparison of percentages in matched samples.

Authors:  W G COCHRAN
Journal:  Biometrika       Date:  1950-12       Impact factor: 2.445

4.  Is the Risk Difference Really a More Heterogeneous Measure?

Authors:  Charlie Poole; Ian Shrier; Tyler J VanderWeele
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 4.822

5.  Errors in causal inference: an organizational schema for systematic error and random error.

Authors:  Etsuji Suzuki; Toshihide Tsuda; Toshiharu Mitsuhashi; Mohammad Ali Mansournia; Eiji Yamamoto
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2016-09-23       Impact factor: 3.797

6.  Transportability of Trial Results Using Inverse Odds of Sampling Weights.

Authors:  Daniel Westreich; Jessie K Edwards; Catherine R Lesko; Elizabeth Stuart; Stephen R Cole
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2017-10-15       Impact factor: 4.897

7.  Target Validity and the Hierarchy of Study Designs.

Authors:  Daniel Westreich; Jessie K Edwards; Catherine R Lesko; Stephen R Cole; Elizabeth A Stuart
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2019-02-01       Impact factor: 4.897

8.  Generalizing causal inferences from individuals in randomized trials to all trial-eligible individuals.

Authors:  Issa J Dahabreh; Sarah E Robertson; Eric J Tchetgen; Elizabeth A Stuart; Miguel A Hernán
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2019-06-21       Impact factor: 2.571

9.  Generalizing evidence from randomized clinical trials to target populations: The ACTG 320 trial.

Authors:  Stephen R Cole; Elizabeth A Stuart
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2010-06-14       Impact factor: 4.897

Review 10.  Interethnic differences in genetic polymorphisms of CYP2D6 in the U.S. population: clinical implications.

Authors:  Stephen Bernard; Kathleen A Neville; Anne T Nguyen; David A Flockhart
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2006-02
View more
  3 in total

1.  Objectives, design and main findings until 2020 from the Rotterdam Study.

Authors:  M Arfan Ikram; Guy Brusselle; Mohsen Ghanbari; André Goedegebure; M Kamran Ikram; Maryam Kavousi; Brenda C T Kieboom; Caroline C W Klaver; Robert J de Knegt; Annemarie I Luik; Tamar E C Nijsten; Robin P Peeters; Frank J A van Rooij; Bruno H Stricker; André G Uitterlinden; Meike W Vernooij; Trudy Voortman
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2020-05-04       Impact factor: 8.082

2.  A directed acyclic graph for interactions.

Authors:  Anton Nilsson; Carl Bonander; Ulf Strömberg; Jonas Björk
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2021-05-17       Impact factor: 7.196

Review 3.  A Causal Framework for Making Individualized Treatment Decisions in Oncology.

Authors:  Pavlos Msaouel; Juhee Lee; Jose A Karam; Peter F Thall
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-14       Impact factor: 6.575

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.