What question are we trying to answer? Embracing causal inference

Abstract

Read online

This study summarizes a presentation at the symposium for the Calvin Schwabe Award for Lifetime Achievement in Veterinary Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, which was awarded to the first author. As epidemiologists, we are taught that “correlation does not imply causation.” While true, identifying causes is a key objective for much of the research that we conduct. There is empirical evidence that veterinary epidemiologists are conducting observational research with the intent to identify causes; many studies include control for confounding variables, and causal language is often used when interpreting study results. Frameworks for studying causes include the articulation of specific hypotheses to be tested, approaches for the selection of variables, methods for statistical estimation of the relationship between the exposure and the outcome, and interpretation of that relationship as causal. When comparing observational studies in veterinary populations to those conducted in human populations, the application of each of these steps differs substantially. The a priori identification of exposure–outcome pairs of interest are less common in observational studies in the veterinary literature compared to the human literature, and prior knowledge is used to select confounding variables in most observational studies in human populations, whereas data-driven approaches are the norm in veterinary populations. The consequences of not having a defined exposure–outcome hypotheses of interest and using data-driven analytical approaches include an increased probability of biased results and poor replicability of results. A discussion by the community of researchers on current approaches to studying causes in observational studies in veterinary populations is warranted.

Keywords

• causation
• observational studies
• veterinary
• variable selection
• confounding