Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Jun;119(6):1125-1134.
doi: 10.1111/add.16442. Epub 2024 Feb 11.

Designing observational studies for credible causal inference in addiction research-Directed acyclic graphs, modified disjunctive cause criterion and target trial emulation

Affiliations

Designing observational studies for credible causal inference in addiction research-Directed acyclic graphs, modified disjunctive cause criterion and target trial emulation

Gary C K Chan et al. Addiction. 2024 Jun.

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for causal inference. With a sufficient sample size, randomization removes confounding up to the time of randomization and allows the treatment effect to be isolated. However, RCTs may have limited generalizability and transportability and are often not feasible in addiction research due to ethical or logistical constraints. The importance of observational studies from real-world settings has been increasingly recognized in research on health. This paper provides an overview of modern approaches to designing observational studies that enable causal inference. It illustrates three key techniques, Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs), modified Disjunctive Cause Criterion and Target Trial Emulation, and discusses the strengths and limitations of their applications.

Keywords: DAGs; casuality; causal inference; directed acyclic graphs; modified disjunctive cause criterion; target trial emulation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

REFERENCES

    1. Deaton A, Cartwright N. Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials. Soc Sci Med. 2018;210:2–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.12.005
    1. Ioannidis JP. Randomized controlled trials: often flawed, mostly useless, clearly indispensable: a commentary on Deaton and Cartwright. Soc Sci Med (1982). 2018;210:53–56.
    1. Hopewell S, Dutton S, Yu L‐M, Chan A‐W, Altman DG. The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMed. BMJ. 2010;340:c723. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c723
    1. US Food & Drug Administration. Real‐World Evidence. https://www.fda.gov/science-research/science-and-research-special-topics... (2021). Accessed 28 Nov 2021.
    1. Chan G, Lim C, Sun T, et al. Causal inference with observational data in addiction research. Addiction. 2022;117(10):2736–2744. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.15972

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources