Causal inference methods for systematic reviews
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2026.2253Keywords:
systematic review, causal inference, methodology, confounder bias, collider biasAbstract
Systematic reviews are frequently used to ask and answer causal questions, and decisions made throughout the review process can introduce bias because of the causal relationships between variables of interest, even when the question being asked is not itself causal. However, current systematic review best practices do not consider most of these impacts.
The author presents an introduction to the basic principles and terminology of causal inference as apply to systematic reviews and discusses how some simple causal inference concepts can be used to create clearer and less biased research questions, search strategies, eligibility criteria, and data analysis. By taking into account confounder and collider bias, and by paying careful attention to the differences in assumptions made in intervention- and non-intervention-based reviews, health science librarians can aid systematic review teams in minimizing the risk of bias, and in appropriately analyzing and assessing that risk.
References
1. van Zwieten A, Blyth FM, Wong G, Khalatbari-Soltani S. Consideration of overadjustment bias in guidelines and tools for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies is long overdue. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2024;53(1):dyad174. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyad174.
2. Spencer AJ, Eldredge JD. Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: a scoping review. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018 Jan;106(1):46-56. Available from: http://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.82.
3. Swanberg SM, Dennison CC, Farrell A, Machel V, Marton C, O'Brien KK, et al. Instructional methods used by health sciences librarians to teach evidence-based practice (EBP): a systematic review. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016 Jul;104(3):197-208. Available from: http://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.3.004.
4. Cole SR, Platt RW, Schisterman EF, Chu H, Westreich D, Richardson D, et al. Illustrating bias due to conditioning on a collider. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2010;39(2):417-20. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyp334.
5. Stovitz SD, Shrier I. Causal inference for clinicians. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2019 Jun;24(3):109-12. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2018-111069.
6. Spirtes P, Zhang K. Search for Causal Models. In: Maathuis M, Drton M, Lauritzen S, Wainwright M, editors. Handbook of Graphical Models: CRC Press; 2019. p. 440.
7. Pechey R, Monsivais P. Socioeconomic inequalities in the healthiness of food choices: Exploring the contributions of food expenditures. Prev Med. 2016 Jul;88:203-9. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.04.012
8. Shuval K, Li Q, Gabriel KP, Tchernis R. Income, physical activity, sedentary behavior, and the ‘weekend warrior’ among U.S. adults. Preventive Medicine. 2017 2017/10/01/;103:91-7. Available from: http://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.07.033
9. Weiskopf NG, Dorr DA, Jackson C, Lehmann HP, Thompson CA. Healthcare utilization is a collider: an introduction to collider bias in EHR data reuse. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2023 Apr 19;30(5):971-7. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocad013.
10. Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page M, et al., editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 6.5 ed: Cochrane; 2024.
11. Anderson LM, Petticrew M, Rehfuess E, Armstrong R, Ueffing E, Baker P, et al. Using logic models to capture complexity in systematic reviews. Research Synthesis Methods. 2011 2011/03/01;2(1):33-42. Available from: http://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.32.
12. Greenland S, Pearl J, Robins JM. Causal Diagrams for Epidemiologic Research. Epidemiology. 1999;10(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/00001648-199901000-00008.
13. Charig CR, Webb DR, Payne SR, Wickham JE. Comparison of treatment of renal calculi by open surgery, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1986 Mar 29;292(6524):879-82. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.292.6524.879.
14. Julious SA, Mullee MA. Confounding and Simpson's paradox. Bmj. 1994 Dec 3;309(6967):1480-1. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.309.6967.1480.
15. Erez A, Kivity S, Berkovitch A, Milwidsky A, Klempfner R, Segev S, et al. The association between cardiorespiratory fitness and cardiovascular risk may be modulated by known cardiovascular risk factors. American Heart Journal. 2015 2015/06/01/;169(6):916-23.e1. Available from: http://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2015.02.023.
16. Mann S, Beedie C, Jimenez A. Differential effects of aerobic exercise, resistance training and combined exercise modalities on cholesterol and the lipid profile: review, synthesis and recommendations. Sports Med. 2014 Feb;44(2):211-21. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-013-0110-5.
17. Griffith GJ, Morris TT, Tudball MJ, Herbert A, Mancano G, Pike L, et al. Collider bias undermines our understanding of COVID-19 disease risk and severity. Nat Commun. 2020 Nov 12;11(1):5749. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19478-2.
18. Bonovas S, Piovani D. Simpson's Paradox in Clinical Research: A Cautionary Tale. J Clin Med. 2023 Feb 18;12(4). Available from: http://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12041633.
19. Stone J, Gurunathan U, Glass K, Munn Z, Tugwell P, Doi SAR. Stratification by quality induced selection bias in a meta-analysis of clinical trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Mar;107:51-9. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.11.015.
20. Del Junco DJ, Bulger EM, Fox EE, Holcomb JB, Brasel KJ, Hoyt DB, et al. Collider bias in trauma comparative effectiveness research: The stratification blues for systematic reviews. Injury. 2015 2015/05/01/;46(5):775-80. Available from: http://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2015.01.043.
21. Munafò MR, Tilling K, Taylor AE, Evans DM, Davey Smith G. Collider scope: when selection bias can substantially influence observed associations. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2018;47(1):226-35. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyx206.
22. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Madelyn Glymour
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
