Cited by 3,115Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Using Big Data to Emulate a Target Trial When a Randomized Trial Is Not Available: Table 1.

Open access
Hernán, Miguel A., Robins, James M.·2016·American Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

Ideally, questions about comparative effectiveness or safety would be answered using an appropriately designed and conducted randomized experiment. When we cannot conduct a randomized experiment, we analyze observational data. Causal inference from large observational databases (big data) can be viewed as an attempt to emulate a randomized experiment-the target experiment or target trial-that would answer the question of interest. When the goal is to guide decisions among several strategies, causal analyses of observational data need to be evaluated with respect to how well they emulate a particular target trial. We outline a framework for comparative effectiveness research using big data that makes the target trial explicit. This framework channels counterfactual theory for comparing the effects of sustained treatment strategies, organizes analytic approaches, provides a structured process for the criticism of observational studies, and helps avoid common methodologic pitfalls.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/aje/kwv254

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Causal-inference frameworks, including target-trial emulation, propensity score methods, and instrumental-variable approaches, help separate prognostic associations from treatment effects in observational data.

    “Causal-inference frameworks, including target-trial emulation, propensity score methods, and instrumental-variable approaches, help separate prognostic associations from treatment effects in observational data.63”

    From Artificial Intelligence in Oncology: Practical Applications Across Clinical Care, Scholarship, and Translation. (2026) · cites this paper as [63]

    The introduction (p. 1) presents target-trial emulation as a framework for estimating treatment effects from observational data. The Assignment procedures section (p. 3) also identifies propensity-score matching as a way to adjust for confounding. The copy does not address instrumental-variable approaches, so it does not support that part of the sentence. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [13]13. Hernán MA, Alonso A, Logan R, et al. Observational studies analyzed like randomized experiments: an application to postmenopausal hormone therapy and coronary heart disease. Epidemiology . 2008;19(6):766 -779.
  2. [17]17. Robins JM. The analysis of randomized and non-randomized AIDS treatment trials using a new approach to causal inference in longitudinal studies. In: Sechrest L, Freeman H, Mulley A, eds. Health Services Research Methodology: A Focus on AIDS . Washington, DC: US Public Health Service National Center for Health Services Research; 1989:113 -159.
  3. [33]33. Robins JM, Hernán MA, Rotnitzky A. Effect modi fi cation by time-varying covariates. Am J Epidemiol . 2007;166(9): 994 -1002; discussion 1003 -1004.
  4. [51]51. Robins JM. Comment on ' choice as an alternative to control in observational studies ' by Paul Rosenbaum. Stat Sci . 1998; 14(3):281 -293.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hernán, M. A., & Robins, J. M.
Venue
American Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2016-03-18
Volume
183
Issue
8
Pages
758-764
ISSN
  • 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-6256
OpenAlex
W2298338128
Cited by
3,115
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 856 · 2025: 595 · 2024: 411 · 2023: 352 · 2022: 332 · 2021: 242 · 2020: 154 · 2019: 85 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 13
FWCI
59.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (R01 AI102634, P01 CA134294)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
big data, target trial emulation, observational studies, causal inference, comparative effectiveness research
MeSH terms
Breast Neoplasms, Drug Therapy, Combination, Female, Humans, Progestins, Estrogen Replacement Therapy, Causality, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Databases, Factual, Postmenopause, Comparative Effectiveness Research, Propensity Score, Observational Studies as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review