The Importance of Being Upfront about Causality in Observational Research

Here is the profile for Harvard Professor Robert (Bobby) Yeh.

His most recent Circulation paper: Bringing the Credibility Revolution to Observational Research in Cardiology.

We referenced a paper by Professor Miguel Hernan: The C-Word: Scientific Euphemisms Do Not Improve Causal Inference From Observational Data

Paper referenced on left ventricular assist devices: Comparative Effectiveness of Percutaneous Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Device vs Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump or No Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock

Sensible Medicine is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

I learned a lot from this conversation. One of the main lessons is that no matter how well the authors avoid causal language, the intent of an observational comparison study is causal. And if that is so, the main thrust of these efforts ought to be simulate, as close as possible, a randomized clinical trial.

One of my favorite parts of our chat was Bobby’s now famous explanation of immortal time bias using Cheetos.

Let us know what you think. I hope to do more of these types of conversations.

JMM

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.sensible-med.com/subscribe