Causal assessment in evidence synthesis: A methodological review of reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In fields (such as population health) where randomised trials are often lacking, systematic reviews (SRs) can harness diversity in study design, settings and populations to assess the evidence for a putative causal relationship. SRs may incorporate causal assessment approaches (CAAs), sometimes called 'causal reviews', but there is currently no consensus on how these should be conducted. We conducted a methodological review of self-identifying 'causal reviews' within the field of population health to establish: (1) which CAAs are used; (2) differences in how CAAs are implemented; (3) how methods were modified to incorporate causal assessment in SRs. Three databases were searched and two independent reviewers selected reviews for inclusion. Data were extracted using a standardised form and summarised using tabulation and narratively. Fifty-three reviews incorporated CAAs: 46/53 applied Bradford Hill (BH) viewpoints/criteria, with the remainder taking alternative approaches: Medical Research Council guidance on natural experiments (2/53, 3.8%); realist reviews (2/53, 3.8%); horizontal SRs (1/53, 1.9%); 'sign test' of causal mechanisms (1/53, 1.9%); and a causal cascade model (1/53, 1.9%). Though most SRs incorporated BH, there was variation in application and transparency. There was considerable overlap across the CAAs, with a trade-off between breadth (BH viewpoints considered a greater range of causal characteristics) and depth (many alternative CAAs focused on one viewpoint). Improved transparency in the implementation of CAA in SRs in needed to ensure their validity and allow robust assessments of causality within evidence synthesis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.327 | 0.675 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.049 | 0.054 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".