2021
DOI: 10.1186/s12874-021-01220-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Causal inference concepts applied to three observational studies in the context of vaccine development: from theory to practice

Abstract: Background Randomized controlled trials are considered the gold standard to evaluate causal associations, whereas assessing causality in observational studies is challenging. Methods We applied Hill’s Criteria, counterfactual reasoning, and causal diagrams to evaluate a potentially causal relationship between an exposure and outcome in three published observational studies: a) one burden of disease cohort study to determine the association between … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 52 publications
(66 reference statements)
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…[17][18][19] We will explore this inconsistency by reviewing the literature under the principles of causal inference. We here use counterfactual reasoning as proposed by Rubin, 20 Balke and Pearl 21 and as recently revised by Gvozdenović et al 22 Treatment effects are considered causal, under the proviso of certain assumptions: exchangeability, positivity and consistency. We will start by defining causality under these assumptions.…”
Section: Key Messagesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[17][18][19] We will explore this inconsistency by reviewing the literature under the principles of causal inference. We here use counterfactual reasoning as proposed by Rubin, 20 Balke and Pearl 21 and as recently revised by Gvozdenović et al 22 Treatment effects are considered causal, under the proviso of certain assumptions: exchangeability, positivity and consistency. We will start by defining causality under these assumptions.…”
Section: Key Messagesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Randomised controlled trials (RCT) are often employed to explore causal relationships [ 6 ], but an RCT would be unethical and impractical in this scenario–non-smokers would need to be unnecessarily exposed to nicotine for decades to understand the (potentially harmful) long-term effects of regular nicotine use without confounding from exposure to cigarette smoke. Mendelian randomisation (MR) is an alternative method which can be used in scenarios where RCTs are implausible or unethical.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%