Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 24, 2025

Author Spotlight: Evaluating the Adjuvant Efficacy and Safety of Angong Niuhuang Pill in Viral Encephalitis Treatment
Published on: April 19, 2024
Inconsistent consistency: evaluating the well-defined intervention assumption in applied epidemiological research
Jerzy Eisenberg-Guyot1, Katrina L Kezios2, Seth J Prins2,3
1Division of Epidemiology, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Background:
According to textbook guidance, satisfying the well-defined intervention assumption is key for estimating causal effects. However, no studies have systematically evaluated how the assumption is addressed in research. Thus, we reviewed how researchers using g-methods or targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE) interpreted and addressed the well-defined intervention assumption in epidemiological studies.
Methods:
We reviewed observational epidemiological studies that used g-methods or TMLE, were published from 2000-21 in epidemiology journals with the six highest 2020 impact factors and met additional criteria. Among other factors, reviewers assessed if authors of included studies aimed to estimate the effects of hypothetical interventions. Then, among such studies, reviewers assessed whether authors discussed key causal-inference assumptions (e.g. consistency or treatment variation irrelevance), how they interpreted their findings and if they specified well-defined interventions.
Results:
Just 20% (29/146) of studies aimed to estimate the effects of hypothetical interventions. Of such intervention-effect studies, almost none (1/29) stated 'how' the exposure would be intervened upon; among those that did not state a 'how', the 'how' mattered for consistency (i.e., for treatment variation irrelevance) in 64% of studies (18/28). Moreover, whereas 79% (23/29) of intervention-effect studies mentioned consistency, just 45% (13/29) interpreted findings as corresponding to the effects of hypothetical interventions. Finally, reviewers determined that just 38% (11/29) of intervention-effect studies had well-defined interventions.
Conclusions:
We found substantial deviations between guidelines regarding meeting the well-defined intervention assumption and researchers' application of the guidelines, with authors of intervention-effect studies rarely critically examining the assumption's validity, let alone specifying well-defined interventions.
More Related Videos
06:55Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
07:40Validation of a Psychosocial Intervention on Body Image in Older People: An Experimental Design
Published on: May 31, 2021
Related Concept Videos
Introduction to Epidemiology
Study Designs in Epidemiology
Observational studies are those where the researcher does not intervene but rather observes natural variations. They include cross-sectional, cohort, and...
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Bias in Epidemiological Studies
Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...
What is an Experiment?