Causal inference is a core task of science. However, authors and editors often refrain from explicitly acknowledging the causal goal of research projects; they refer to causal effect estimates as ...associational estimates. This commentary argues that using the term "causal" is necessary to improve the quality of observational research. Specifically, being explicit about the causal objective of a study reduces ambiguity in the scientific question, errors in the data analysis, and excesses in the interpretation of the results.
For researchers using observational data, a useful way to answer a causal question is to design the target trial that would answer it and then emulate its protocol. The example of the ...HIV-treatment-as-prevention strategy illustrates the benefits of this approach.
Abstract
Ideally, questions about comparative effectiveness or safety would be answered using an appropriately designed and conducted randomized experiment. When we cannot conduct a randomized ...experiment, we analyze observational data. Causal inference from large observational databases (big data) can be viewed as an attempt to emulate a randomized experiment—the target experiment or target trial—that would answer the question of interest. When the goal is to guide decisions among several strategies, causal analyses of observational data need to be evaluated with respect to how well they emulate a particular target trial. We outline a framework for comparative effectiveness research using big data that makes the target trial explicit. This framework channels counterfactual theory for comparing the effects of sustained treatment strategies, organizes analytic approaches, provides a structured process for the criticism of observational studies, and helps avoid common methodologic pitfalls.
Observational databases are often used to study causal questions. Before being granted access to data or funding, researchers may need to prove that “the statistical power of their analysis will be ...high.” Analyses expected to have low power, and hence result in imprecise estimates, will not be approved. This restrictive attitude towards observational analyses is misguided.
A key misunderstanding is the belief that the goal of a causal analysis is to “detect” an effect. Causal effects are not binary signals that are either detected or undetected; causal effects are numerical quantities that need to be estimated. Because the goal is to quantify the effect as unbiasedly and precisely as possible, the solution to observational analyses with imprecise effect estimates is not avoiding observational analyses with imprecise estimates, but rather encouraging the conduct of many observational analyses. It is preferable to have multiple studies with imprecise estimates than having no study at all. After several studies become available, we will meta-analyze them and provide a more precise pooled effect estimate. Therefore, the justification to withhold an observational analysis of preexisting data cannot be that our estimates will be imprecise. Ethical arguments for power calculations before conducting a randomized trial which place individuals at risk are not transferable to observational analyses of existing databases.
If a causal question is important, analyze your data, publish your estimates, encourage others to do the same, and then meta-analyze. The alternative is an unanswered question.
Why Test for Proportional Hazards? Stensrud, Mats J; Hernán, Miguel A
JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association,
04/2020, Letnik:
323, Številka:
14
Journal Article
Recenzirano
This JAMA Guide to Statistics and Methods explains the meaning underlying the proportional hazards (PH) assumption underlying Cox regression and survival analyses, and proposes that reports of ...survival differences might replace statistical tests of the PH assumption because they are more meaningful.
Many countries are experiencing a resurgence of COVID-19, driven predominantly by the delta (B.1.617.2) variant of SARS-CoV-2. In response, these countries are considering the administration of a ...third dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine as a booster dose to address potential waning immunity over time and reduced effectiveness against the delta variant. We aimed to use the data repositories of Israel's largest health-care organisation to evaluate the effectiveness of a third dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine for preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes.
Using data from Clalit Health Services, which provides mandatory health-care coverage for over half of the Israeli population, individuals receiving a third vaccine dose between July 30, 2020, and Sept 23, 2021, were matched (1:1) to demographically and clinically similar controls who did not receive a third dose. Eligible participants had received the second vaccine dose at least 5 months before the recruitment date, had no previous documented SARS-CoV-2 infection, and had no contact with the health-care system in the 3 days before recruitment. Individuals who are health-care workers, live in long-term care facilities, or are medically confined to their homes were excluded. Primary outcomes were COVID-19-related admission to hospital, severe disease, and COVID-19-related death. The third dose effectiveness for each outcome was estimated as 1 – risk ratio using the Kaplan-Meier estimator.
1 158 269 individuals were eligible to be included in the third dose group. Following matching, the third dose and control groups each included 728 321 individuals. Participants had a median age of 52 years (IQR 37–68) and 51% were female. The median follow-up time was 13 days (IQR 6–21) in both groups. Vaccine effectiveness evaluated at least 7 days after receipt of the third dose, compared with receiving only two doses at least 5 months ago, was estimated to be 93% (231 events for two doses vs 29 events for three doses; 95% CI 88–97) for admission to hospital, 92% (157 vs 17 events; 82–97) for severe disease, and 81% (44 vs seven events; 59–97) for COVID-19-related death.
Our findings suggest that a third dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine is effective in protecting individuals against severe COVID-19-related outcomes, compared with receiving only two doses at least 5 months ago.
The Ivan and Francesca Berkowitz Family Living Laboratory Collaboration at Harvard Medical School and Clalit Research Institute.
Pragmatic trials are designed to address real-world questions about care options. This article addresses issues that may arise from per-protocol and intention-to-treat analyses of such trials, ...outlines alternative analytic approaches, and provides guidance on how to choose among them.
Nearly 600,000 people in a large health care organization were followed after vaccination for infection, hospitalization, and severe Covid-19. Estimated vaccine effectiveness in preventing death was ...72% during the period from day 14 through day 20 after the first dose, and for the period 7 or more days after the second dose, hospitalization was reduced by 87%. These results were similar to those reported in a randomized trial.
Among more than 1.7 million persons, BNT162b2 vaccination was associated with increased risks of myocarditis (risk ratio, 3.24), lymphadenopathy, appendicitis, and herpes zoster infection; in ...comparison, Covid-19 increased the risks of myocarditis (risk ratio, 18.28), pericarditis, arrhythmia, deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, intracranial hemorrhage, and thrombocytopenia.
PDF
