ReviewJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2025
Research Advance of Causal Inference in Clinical Medicine: A Bibliometrics Analysis via Citespace.
Review in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Causal inference in clinical medicine provides scientific evidence for precision medicine and individualized treatment by revealing the true associations between interventions and health outcomes. This study aims to conduct a comprehensive bibliometric analysis to identify current research trends, primary themes, and future directions for the application of causal inference in clinical medicine. Methods: We conducted a literature search in the Web of Science database using causal inference and medical terminology as subject keywords, covering the period from January 1986 to December 2024. After screening, we obtained 4,316 documents for analysis. Utilizing CiteSpace to generate network diagrams, we analyzed data related to the number of publications, citation analysis, collaboration relationships, keyword co-occurrence, and highlighted terms to illustrate the knowledge map and collaboration network in this field. Results: Publications on medical causal inference shows a fluctuating growth trend over time. The United States was the top contributors to this field. Harvard University is the leading research institution. George David Smith is the most prolific author, Robbins JM is the most cited scholar. The major research hotspots concentrated in fields such as epidemiology, coronary heart disease and health. Notably, marginal structural models, counterfactual forecasting, and Mendelian randomization have consistently been key methodologies in research. The burstness of keywords reveals that big data, DNA methylation, and robust estimation are emerging research directions. Conclusion: In clinical research, counterfactual forecasting provides prospective guidance for optimizing clinical strategies; Mendelian randomization helps uncover potential therapeutic targets; and marginal structural models enhance the accuracy of causal effect estimation in clinical studies. The future integration of various data sources to improve causal inference methods is anticipated to enhance the sensitivity and specificity of trials, ultimately elucidating the complex mechanisms of diseases and drug effects. The literature retrieve strategy and the metrics of the tools adopted may have a certain impact on the results of this study.
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.