ArticleInfectious Disease Modelling2026
Applications and reporting of causal inference modelling in infectious disease studies: A systematic review.
Article in Infectious Disease Modelling, 2026. 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.
- Quantitative risk assessment of avian influenza: A scoping review.Infectious Disease Modelling · 2026Review
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
Causal inference is increasingly employed in infectious disease (ID) epidemiology. Despite the increasing adoption of causal inference methods in infectious disease research, there has been no comprehensive review of their implementation trends, estimation approaches, and key specifications. A systematic examination of how these methods were being applied in practice could identify both successful strategies and common pitfalls. This systematic review aimed to describe the usage and reporting of causal methods in observational ID studies. The applications of causal methods in the analyses of ID observational data were identified from systematic searches of PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus. Our analysis focused on detailing the adoption trends of causal inference methods and assessing the comprehensiveness of their reporting and publication between 2010 and 2023. Of the 172 studies, the majority utilised propensity score-based methods (n = 133, 77 %). We identified only 39 studies that explicitly described the use of causal frameworks and employed variations of causal analyses. The most common reason for using causal methods was to address time-varying variables that are prominent in ID research. Consequently, a common approach used was inverse probability treatment weighting with the marginal structural model; additionally, targeted maximum likelihood estimation has become popular in minimising bias. There is substantial variation in reporting causal methods in ID research. Development of reporting guidelines is needed for clear reporting alongside training on how to use and appraise applications of causal inference in observational ID research. This is particularly important for ID modelling, where time-varying factors and complex transmissions and dynamics of treatment often necessitate complex modelling approaches.
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.