↓ Skip to main content

The meaning of confounding adjustment in the presence of multiple versions of treatment: an application to organ transplantation

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Epidemiology, January 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
7 Mendeley
Title
The meaning of confounding adjustment in the presence of multiple versions of treatment: an application to organ transplantation
Published in
European Journal of Epidemiology, January 2019
DOI 10.1007/s10654-019-00484-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kerollos Nashat Wanis, Arin L. Madenci, Mary Katherine Dokus, Mark S. Orloff, Mark A. Levstik, Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro, Miguel A. Hernán

Abstract

Causal inference for treatments with many versions requires a careful specification of the versions of treatment. Specifically, the existence of multiple relevant versions of treatment has implications for the selection of confounders. To illustrate this, we estimate the effect of organ transplantation using grafts from donors who died due to anoxic drug overdose, on recipient graft survival in the US. We describe how explicitly outlining the target trial (i.e. the hypothetical randomized trial which would answer the causal question of interest) to be emulated by an observational study analysis helps conceptualize treatment versions, guides selection of appropriate adjustment variables, and helps clarify the settings in which causal effects of compound treatments will be of value to decision-makers.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 3 43%
Researcher 2 29%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 71%
Unspecified 2 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 08 April 2019.
All research outputs
#7,945,068
of 13,189,004 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Epidemiology
#849
of 1,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,586
of 277,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Epidemiology
#15
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,189,004 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,131 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 277,109 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.