ArticleWellcome open research2025
Triangulating Instrumental Variable, confounder adjustment and difference-in-difference methods for comparative effectiveness research in observational data.
Article in Wellcome open research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Observational studies play an important role in assessing the comparative effectiveness of competing treatments. In clinical trials the randomization of participants to treatment and control groups generally results in balanced groups with respect to possible confounders, which makes the analysis straightforward. However, when analysing observational data, the potential for unmeasured confounding makes comparing treatment effects more challenging. Methods: Causal inference methods such as Instrumental Variable and Prior Event Rate Ratio approaches enable the estimation of causal effects even in the presence of unmeasured or imperfectly measured confounding factors. Direct confounder adjustment via multivariable regression and propensity score matching also have considerable utility. Each method relies on a different set of assumptions and leverages different aspects of the data.The assumptions of each method are described, and the impact of their violation is assessed in a simulation study. We propose the prior outcome augmented Instrumental Variable method that leverages data from before and after treatment initiation and is robust to key assumption violations. Finally, we propose a heterogeneity statistic to decide if two or more estimates are statistically dissimilar, considering their correlation. We illustrate our framework in an application study assessing the risk of genital infection in type 2 diabetes patients prescribed SGLT2-inhibitors versus DPP4-inhibitors using UK primary care data. Results: Our proposed approach can estimate treatment effects without bias in scenarios where assumptions of other methods are violated. Furthermore, the application study exemplified the usefulness of discussing the consistency of estimation results from different estimation methods using triangulation. Conclusion: Triangulating results of different estimation methods is important in observational data to derive high quality evidence. The proposed triangulation framework and heterogeneity statistic are valuable tools to discuss the consistency of estimation results from different methods to shed light on possible sources of bias.
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.