Inconsistent consistency: evaluating the well-defined intervention assumption in applied epidemiological research

IF 6.4 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Jerzy Eisenberg-Guyot, Katrina L Kezios, Seth J Prins, Sharon Schwartz
{"title":"Inconsistent consistency: evaluating the well-defined intervention assumption in applied epidemiological research","authors":"Jerzy Eisenberg-Guyot, Katrina L Kezios, Seth J Prins, Sharon Schwartz","doi":"10.1093/ije/dyaf015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background According to textbook guidance, satisfying the well-defined intervention assumption is key for estimating causal effects. However, no studies have systematically evaluated how the assumption is addressed in research. Thus, we reviewed how researchers using g-methods or targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE) interpreted and addressed the well-defined intervention assumption in epidemiological studies. Methods We reviewed observational epidemiological studies that used g-methods or TMLE, were published from 2000–21 in epidemiology journals with the six highest 2020 impact factors and met additional criteria. Among other factors, reviewers assessed if authors of included studies aimed to estimate the effects of hypothetical interventions. Then, among such studies, reviewers assessed whether authors discussed key causal-inference assumptions (e.g. consistency or treatment variation irrelevance), how they interpreted their findings and if they specified well-defined interventions. Results Just 20% (29/146) of studies aimed to estimate the effects of hypothetical interventions. Of such intervention-effect studies, almost none (1/29) stated ‘how’ the exposure would be intervened upon; among those that did not state a ‘how’, the ‘how’ mattered for consistency (i.e., for treatment variation irrelevance) in 64% of studies (18/28). Moreover, whereas 79% (23/29) of intervention-effect studies mentioned consistency, just 45% (13/29) interpreted findings as corresponding to the effects of hypothetical interventions. Finally, reviewers determined that just 38% (11/29) of intervention-effect studies had well-defined interventions. Conclusions We found substantial deviations between guidelines regarding meeting the well-defined intervention assumption and researchers’ application of the guidelines, with authors of intervention-effect studies rarely critically examining the assumption’s validity, let alone specifying well-defined interventions.","PeriodicalId":14147,"journal":{"name":"International journal of epidemiology","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyaf015","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background According to textbook guidance, satisfying the well-defined intervention assumption is key for estimating causal effects. However, no studies have systematically evaluated how the assumption is addressed in research. Thus, we reviewed how researchers using g-methods or targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE) interpreted and addressed the well-defined intervention assumption in epidemiological studies. Methods We reviewed observational epidemiological studies that used g-methods or TMLE, were published from 2000–21 in epidemiology journals with the six highest 2020 impact factors and met additional criteria. Among other factors, reviewers assessed if authors of included studies aimed to estimate the effects of hypothetical interventions. Then, among such studies, reviewers assessed whether authors discussed key causal-inference assumptions (e.g. consistency or treatment variation irrelevance), how they interpreted their findings and if they specified well-defined interventions. Results Just 20% (29/146) of studies aimed to estimate the effects of hypothetical interventions. Of such intervention-effect studies, almost none (1/29) stated ‘how’ the exposure would be intervened upon; among those that did not state a ‘how’, the ‘how’ mattered for consistency (i.e., for treatment variation irrelevance) in 64% of studies (18/28). Moreover, whereas 79% (23/29) of intervention-effect studies mentioned consistency, just 45% (13/29) interpreted findings as corresponding to the effects of hypothetical interventions. Finally, reviewers determined that just 38% (11/29) of intervention-effect studies had well-defined interventions. Conclusions We found substantial deviations between guidelines regarding meeting the well-defined intervention assumption and researchers’ application of the guidelines, with authors of intervention-effect studies rarely critically examining the assumption’s validity, let alone specifying well-defined interventions.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International journal of epidemiology
International journal of epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
13.60
自引率
2.60%
发文量
226
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Epidemiology is a vital resource for individuals seeking to stay updated on the latest advancements and emerging trends in the field of epidemiology worldwide. The journal fosters communication among researchers, educators, and practitioners involved in the study, teaching, and application of epidemiology pertaining to both communicable and non-communicable diseases. It also includes research on health services and medical care. Furthermore, the journal presents new methodologies in epidemiology and statistics, catering to professionals working in social and preventive medicine. Published six times a year, the International Journal of Epidemiology provides a comprehensive platform for the analysis of data. Overall, this journal is an indispensable tool for staying informed and connected within the dynamic realm of epidemiology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信