↓ Skip to main content

Estimating causal effects from epidemiological data

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (1978), July 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
809 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
632 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Estimating causal effects from epidemiological data
Published in
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (1978), July 2006
DOI 10.1136/jech.2004.029496
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. A Hernan

Abstract

In ideal randomised experiments, association is causation: association measures can be interpreted as effect measures because randomisation ensures that the exposed and the unexposed are exchangeable. On the other hand, in observational studies, association is not generally causation: association measures cannot be interpreted as effect measures because the exposed and the unexposed are not generally exchangeable. However, observational research is often the only alternative for causal inference. This article reviews a condition that permits the estimation of causal effects from observational data, and two methods -- standardisation and inverse probability weighting -- to estimate population causal effects under that condition. For simplicity, the main description is restricted to dichotomous variables and assumes that no random error attributable to sampling variability exists. The appendix provides a generalisation of inverse probability weighting.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 632 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 19 3%
France 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 601 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 166 26%
Researcher 109 17%
Student > Master 56 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 40 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 36 6%
Other 115 18%
Unknown 110 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 196 31%
Social Sciences 53 8%
Mathematics 51 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 4%
Computer Science 22 3%
Other 123 19%
Unknown 160 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 June 2024.
All research outputs
#1,082,098
of 26,205,030 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (1978)
#493
of 4,629 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,665
of 88,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (1978)
#3
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,205,030 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,629 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 88,425 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.