Suppr超能文献

目标有效性与研究设计的层次结构。

Target Validity and the Hierarchy of Study Designs.

出版信息

Am J Epidemiol. 2019 Feb 1;188(2):438-443. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwy228.

Abstract

In recent years, increasing attention has been paid to problems of external validity, specifically to methodological approaches for both quantitative generalizability and transportability of study results. However, most approaches to these issues have considered external validity separately from internal validity. Here we argue that considering either internal or external validity in isolation may be problematic. Further, we argue that a joint measure of the validity of an effect estimate with respect to a specific population of interest may be more useful: We call this proposed measure target validity. In this work, we introduce and formally define target bias as the total difference between the true causal effect in the target population and the estimated causal effect in the study sample, and target validity as target bias = 0. We illustrate this measure with a series of examples and show how this measure may help us to think more clearly about comparisons between experimental and nonexperimental research results. Specifically, we show that even perfect internal validity does not ensure that a causal effect will be unbiased in a specific target population.

摘要

近年来,人们越来越关注外部有效性问题,特别是针对定量推广性和研究结果可转移性的方法。然而,大多数针对这些问题的方法都将外部有效性与内部有效性分开考虑。在这里,我们认为单独考虑内部或外部有效性可能会产生问题。此外,我们认为针对特定感兴趣人群的效果估计值的有效性进行联合衡量可能更有用:我们将此建议的衡量标准称为目标有效性。在这项工作中,我们引入并正式定义目标偏差为目标人群中的真实因果效应与研究样本中的估计因果效应之间的总差异,并将目标有效性定义为目标偏差=0。我们用一系列示例来说明这个度量标准,并展示了这个度量标准如何帮助我们更清楚地思考实验和非实验研究结果之间的比较。具体来说,我们表明即使具有完美的内部有效性,也不能保证在特定目标人群中因果效应是无偏的。

相似文献

1
Target Validity and the Hierarchy of Study Designs.目标有效性与研究设计的层次结构。
Am J Epidemiol. 2019 Feb 1;188(2):438-443. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwy228.
3
Generalizing Study Results: A Potential Outcomes Perspective.推广研究结果:潜在结果视角
Epidemiology. 2017 Jul;28(4):553-561. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000664.
5
External validity, generalizability, and knowledge utilization.外部效度、可推广性与知识应用。
J Nurs Scholarsh. 2004;36(1):16-22. doi: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2004.04006.x.
10
[Comparison of selected causality theories].[选定因果关系理论的比较]
Gesundheitswesen. 2011 Dec;73(12):880-3. doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1291198. Epub 2011 Dec 22.

引用本文的文献

1
Revisiting representativeness.重新审视代表性。
Int J Epidemiol. 2025 Jun 11;54(4). doi: 10.1093/ije/dyaf109.
6
About Research: Clinical Versus Statistical Significance.关于研究:临床意义与统计学意义
J Hum Lact. 2025 May;41(2):181-184. doi: 10.1177/08903344251320587. Epub 2025 Mar 12.
7
Real-world evidence: state-of-the-art and future perspectives.真实世界证据:现状与未来展望。
J Comp Eff Res. 2025 Apr;14(4):e240130. doi: 10.57264/cer-2024-0130. Epub 2025 Mar 7.
10
Replicability and generalizability in population psychiatric neuroimaging.人群精神病学神经影像学中的可重复性和可推广性。
Neuropsychopharmacology. 2024 Nov;50(1):52-57. doi: 10.1038/s41386-024-01960-w. Epub 2024 Aug 30.

本文引用的文献

3
Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials.理解与误解随机对照试验。
Soc Sci Med. 2018 Aug;210:2-21. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.12.005. Epub 2017 Dec 25.
5
Invited Commentary: Selection Bias Without Colliders.特邀评论:无对撞机情况下的选择偏倚
Am J Epidemiol. 2017 Jun 1;185(11):1048-1050. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwx077.
6
Generalizing Study Results: A Potential Outcomes Perspective.推广研究结果:潜在结果视角
Epidemiology. 2017 Jul;28(4):553-561. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000664.
7
An argument for renewed focus on epidemiology for public health.关于重新关注公共卫生流行病学的一个论据。
Ann Epidemiol. 2016 Oct;26(10):729-733. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2016.08.008. Epub 2016 Aug 31.
8
Nondogmatism.非教条主义。
Ann Epidemiol. 2016 Apr;26(4):231-3. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2016.02.005. Epub 2016 Mar 3.
10
Is representativeness the right question?代表性是正确的问题吗?
Int J Epidemiol. 2014 Apr;43(2):631-2. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyt264. Epub 2014 Jan 15.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验