Investigators are increasingly using novel methods for extending (generalizing or transporting) causal inferences from a trial to a target population. In many generalizability and transportability analyses, the trial and the observational data from the target population are separately sampled, following a non-nested trial design. In practical implementations of this design, non-randomized individuals from the target population are often identified by conditioning on the use of a particular treatment, while individuals who used other candidate treatments for the same indication or individuals who did not use any treatment are excluded. In this paper, we argue that conditioning on treatment in the target population changes the estimand of generalizability and transportability analyses and potentially introduces serious bias in the estimation of causal estimands in the target population or the subset of the target population using a specific treatment. Furthermore, we argue that the naive application of marginalization-based or weighting-based standardization methods does not produce estimates of any reasonable causal estimand. We use causal graphs and counterfactual arguments to characterize the identification problems induced by conditioning on treatment in the target population and illustrate the problems using simulated data. We conclude by considering the implications of our findings for applied work.
翻译:调查员越来越多地使用新方法,将试验的因果关系推论(一般化或运输)扩大到目标人群。在许多一般化和可迁移性分析中,根据非免责性试验设计,对目标人群的试验和观察数据进行单独抽样。在实际实施这一设计时,目标人群的非随机化个人往往以使用某种特定治疗为条件而确定,而使用其他候选治疗方法进行相同指数或未使用任何治疗的个人则被排除在外。在本文中,我们争辩说,对目标人群的治疗加以限制,会改变一般性和可迁移性分析的估计值和可迁移性分析,并有可能在估计目标人群或目标人群中采用某种特定治疗的因果估计值时产生严重偏差。此外,我们认为,对基于边缘化或加权的标准化方法的天真的应用并不产生任何合理的因果估计值。我们使用因果图表和反事实论据来说明通过调整目标人群的治疗而引发的识别问题,并用模拟数据说明问题。我们通过考虑我们的工作结果的影响来得出结论。