Assessing the effectiveness of empirical calibration under different bias scenarios

Advances in methodologies of negative controls: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Negative controls are considered an important tool to mitigate biases in observational studies. The aim of this scoping review was to summarize current methodologies of negative controls (both negative control exposure [NCE] and negative control outcome [NCO]).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library (up to March 9, 2023) for articles on methodologies of negative controls. Two reviewers selected eligible studies and collected relevant data independently and in duplicate. We reported total numbers and percentages, and summarized methodologies narratively.

RESULTS

A total of 37 relevant methodological articles were included in our review. These publications covered NCE (n = 11, 29.8%), NCO (n = 13, 35.1%), or both (n = 13, 35.1%), with most focused on bias detection (n = 14, 37.8%), bias correction (n = 16, 43.3%), and P value or confidence interval (CI) calibration (n = 5, 13.5%). For the two remaining articles (5.4%), one discussed bias detection and P value or CI calibration and the other covered all the three functions. For bias detection, the existence of an association between the NCE (NCO) and outcome (exposure) variables of interest simply indicates that results may suffer from confounding bias, selection bias and/or information bias. For bias correction, however, the algorithms of negative control methods need more stringent assumptions such as rank preservation, monotonicity, and linearity.

CONCLUSION

Negative controls can be leveraged for bias detection, P value or CI calibration, and bias correction, among which bias correction has been the most studied methodologically. The current available methods need some stringent assumptions to detect or remove bias. More methodological research is needed to optimize the use of negative controls.

Causal models and causal modelling in obesity: foundations, methods and evidence

Discussing causes in science, if we are to do so in a way that is sensible, begins at the root. All too often, we jump to discussing specific postulated causes but do not first consider what we mean by, for example, causes of obesity or how we discern whether something is a cause. In this paper, we address what we mean by a cause, discuss what might and might not constitute a reasonable causal model in the abstract, speculate about what the causal structure of obesity might be like overall and the types of things we should be looking for, and finally, delve into methods for evaluating postulated causes and estimating causal effects. We offer the view that different meanings of the concept of causal factors in obesity research are regularly being conflated, leading to confusion, unclear thinking and sometimes nonsense. We emphasize the idea of different kinds of studies for evaluating various aspects of causal effects and discuss experimental methods, assumptions and evaluations. We use analogies from other areas of research to express the plausibility that only inelegant solutions will be truly informative. Finally, we offer comments on some specific postulated causal factors. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'Causes of obesity: theories, conjectures and evidence (Part II)'.