ArticleBiostatistics (Oxford, England)2025
Recoverability of causal effects under presence of missing data: a longitudinal case study.
Article in Biostatistics (Oxford, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Correlation does not equal causation: the imperative of causal inference in machine learning models for immunotherapy.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Pooled it
- Causal Effect Estimation With TMLE: Handling Missing Data and Near Violations of Positivity.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2026Article
- Article
- Association of tuberculosis infection with the development of active tuberculosis and comorbidities in rural China: a 10-year follow-up results of a population-based, multicentre, prospective study.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025Article
- Causal Inference for Continuous Multiple Time Point Interventions.Statistics in medicine · 2024Article
- Determining Targets for Antiretroviral Drug Concentrations: A Causal Framework Illustrated With Pediatric Efavirenz Data From the CHAPAS-3 Trial.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Missing data in multiple variables is a common issue. We investigate the applicability of the framework of graphical models for handling missing data to a complex longitudinal pharmacological study of children with HIV treated with an efavirenz-based regimen as part of the CHAPAS-3 trial. Specifically, we examine whether the causal effects of interest, defined through static interventions on multiple continuous variables, can be recovered (estimated consistently) from the available data only. So far, no general algorithms are available to decide on recoverability, and decisions have to be made on a case-by-case basis. We emphasize the sensitivity of recoverability to even the smallest changes in the graph structure, and present recoverability results for three plausible missingness-directed acyclic graphs (m-DAGs) in the CHAPAS-3 study, informed by clinical knowledge. Furthermore, we propose the concept of a "closed missingness mechanism": if missing data are generated based on this mechanism, an available case analysis is admissible for consistent estimation of any statistical or causal estimand, even if data are missing not at random. Both simulations and theoretical considerations demonstrate how, in the assumed MNAR setting of our study, a complete or available case analysis can be superior to multiple imputation, and estimation results vary depending on the assumed missingness DAG. Our analyses demonstrate an innovative application of missingness DAGs to complex longitudinal real-world data, while highlighting the sensitivity of the results with respect to the assumed causal model.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.