Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Causal inference methods for combining randomized trials and observational studies: a review

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2011.08047 v4 pith:AGTICPKP submitted 2020-11-16 stat.ME

classification stat.ME
keywords observationaldatamethodsrctscausaleffecteffectsliterature
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

With increasing data availability, causal effects can be evaluated across different data sets, both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. RCTs isolate the effect of the treatment from that of unwanted (confounding) co-occurring effects but they may suffer from unrepresentativeness, and thus lack external validity. On the other hand, large observational samples are often more representative of the target population but can conflate confounding effects with the treatment of interest. In this paper, we review the growing literature on methods for causal inference on combined RCTs and observational studies, striving for the best of both worlds. We first discuss identification and estimation methods that improve generalizability of RCTs using the representativeness of observational data. Classical estimators include weighting, difference between conditional outcome models, and doubly robust estimators. We then discuss methods that combine RCTs and observational data to either ensure uncounfoundedness of the observational analysis or to improve (conditional) average treatment effect estimation. We also connect and contrast works developed in both the potential outcomes literature and the structural causal model literature. Finally, we compare the main methods using a simulation study and real world data to analyze the effect of tranexamic acid on the mortality rate in major trauma patients. A review of available codes and new implementations is also provided.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. When Does Trial-Real-World Data Fusion Improve Precision? Model Auditing and Selection-Aware Inference for Adaptive-TMLE

    stat.ME 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Under A-TMLE, RCT+RWD efficiency gain is driven by bias magnitude not complexity, crosses break-even near one residual SD of bias, erodes with sample size, and only a block jackknife gives honest intervals for the gain.

  2. Precision Mental Health: Predicting Heterogeneous Treatment Effects for Depression through Data Integration

    stat.AP 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A two-stage meta-analysis with parametric or machine-learning first-stage models produces 95% prediction intervals for conditional average treatment effects in a target patient population.

  3. Longitudinal Outcomes Truncated by Death: Causal Estimands and Bayesian Estimators

    stat.ME 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Framework clarifying causal estimands for longitudinal outcomes truncated by death, with Bayesian estimators; stratified average causal effect plus restricted mean survival time gives a more complete treatment effect ...

Pith tools